Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission
Regulations Committee

April 7, 2004

BE IT REMEMBERED, that
heretofore on the 7th day
of April, 2004, there came
on to be heard matters under
the regulatory authority
of the Parks and Wildlife
Commission of Texas, in
the Commission Hearing Room
of the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department Headquarters
Complex, beginning at 9:00
a.m. to wit:

APPEARANCES:

THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE
COMMISSION:

Joseph B.C. Fitzsimons,
San Antonio, Texas,
Chairman

J. Robert Brown,
El Paso, Texas

Ned S. Holmes, Houston,
Texas

Alvin L. Henry,
Houston, Texas

Peter M. Holt, San
Antonio, Texas

Philip Montgomery,
Dallas, Texas

John D. Parker, Lufkin,
Texas (absent)

Donato D. Ramos, Laredo,
Texas

Mark E. Watson, Jr.,
San Antonio, Texas

THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE
DEPARTMENT:
Robert L. Cook, Executive
Director, and other personnel
of the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department

P R O C E E D I N G S

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Meeting's
called to order. Before
proceeding with any business,
I believe Mr. Cook has a
statement to make.

MR. COOK: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, a public notice
of this meeting containing
all items on the proposed
agenda has been filed in
the office of Secretary
of State as required by
Chapter 551, government
code, referred to as the
Open Meetings Law.

I would like for this action
to be noted in the official
record of this meeting.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Thank
you, Mr. Cook.

First order of business,
is approval of the Committee
minutes, which have already
been distributed. Is there
a motion for approval?

COMMISSIONER HOLMES: So
moved.

COMMISSIONER HOLT: Second.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Motion
by Commissioner Holmes,
second by Commissioner Holt.
All in favor, please say,
Aye.

(A chorus of ayes.)

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Any
oppose?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Hearing
none, motion carried. All
right.

Committee Item Number 1,
Chairman's Charges.

Mr. Cook.

MR. COOK: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.

In the regulations committee,
one of the Chairman charges,
of course covering the implementation
authority and direction
given by the 78th legislature,
House Bill 1989, the freshwater
stamp, the east Texas hatchery
project, I'd like to bring
you up to date on that.

The Department has entered
into a memorandum of understanding
with the Parks Wildlife
Foundation of Texas to assist
in site selection and evaluation
of partnership proposals
for a new fish hatchery
in that area of east Texas.

Mr. Durocher and his staff
of folks in working with
the Foundation have sent
out 300 letters to a variety
of east Texas county government,
cities, etc. to determine
their possible interest
in partnering on this project.

Formal request for proposals
were requested by 40 of
those groups. Out of the
300 and some odd we sent
out, we got 40 responses
back, saying yes.

We would like to put forward
a request to get the information
for that. The deadline for
proposal submission was
set at the end of business
on May 27.

So those entities out there
who are interested in possibly
partnering and working with
us on the project — we
should have their initial
proposal by just prior to
the next Commission meeting.

The Foundation will evaluate
the proposals and submit
a recommendation to the
agency on or before August
16. Formal Commission action
will take place at the August
26 meeting.

A second charge in the
Regulations Committee was
to develop a year—to—date
fishing license option.
To address this charge,
we have proposed a year-to-date
fishing license to be included
in our FY '05 license package.

Mr. Gene McCarty will present
this proposal to you for
your review today, in the
Finance Committee.

Thank you, sir.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Thank
you, Bob.

I had and opportunity to
go up there to the freshwater
fishery center a couple
of weeks with former chairman
Ed Cox, who it is very aptly
named for. And I think it's
a good template for what
we're doing with the new
hatchery.

It certainly keeps the
process objective. And if
you have any questions about
it, you can ask Bob.

That was a pretty healthy
response.

MR. COOK: There was a lot
of enthusiasm. And again,
I think Mr. Durocher and
his folks there in that
Jasper area where the current
hatchery is, have great
relationships with the people
in that area, river authorities,
cities, counties, communities,
chambers of commerce.

We're going to have a lot
of interest in this project,
and it's going to allow
us I think to stretch our
dollars there and go into
the future with a great
hatchery in that part of
east Texas, that will serve
our purposes for many decades
to come.

Again, my compliments to
Mr. Durocher and his staff
for having that kind of
relationship and doing the
job they're doing.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: One
comment on the Chairman's
charges. What I tried to
do here — I know all
of you had seen them and
reviewed them — I
tried to tie them to the
land and water conservation
resource plan.

We've got a ten—year
plan. Everybody worked hard
on getting it. So I'd like
the charges to certainly
reflect the job we've already
said we're going to do,
and the idea being that
we could monitor it along
the way, and hopefully have
those delivered.

I'm here today to brief
you on changes that we are
proposing to state fur—bearer
regulations. These changes
represent the department's
continuing commitment to
simplify the regulations
whenever possible, without
jeopardizing wildlife resources.

The proposed changes would
be to remove some unnecessary
definitions from the rules,
to remove the bag and possession
limits on recreational harvest
of fur—bearing animals.

Condense the means and
methods section by eliminating
the allowed equipment section,
because there is a section
that disallows equipment.
So both are not necessary.

It would also allow the
sale by trappers to out—of—state
fur buyers. At present,
it's only allowed to sell
to in—state fur buyers.
This would allow trappers
to sell to out-of-state
fur buyers. Those that do
would be required to report
all their out-of-state sales
to us.

The last item there was
something that you have
adopted before. I put it
up there just to show you
it was another simplification
of these regulations. You
previously allowed the year—round
sale of fur—bearing
animals that would be taken
by trappers during the commercial
season.

There are some other issues
and requests from trappers
that have been raised. We
are not recommending those
at this time.

They would involve the
distinction between trappers
and fur dealers, as well
as the difference between
commercial harvest and recreational
or hunting harvest.

We feel that these issues
would be better addressed
by considering statutory
changes rather than regulatory
changes.

We're also concerned that
some of the changes that
they would recommend, such
as allowing them to sell
directly to any member of
the public, would require
us to treat trappers and
dealers the same, in order
for us to get the annual
reports of how many animals
are taken.

We use that information
to determine our annual
harvest and our populations
levels.

We feel that that would
probably increase the regulatory
and reporting burden, both
on the trappers and on the
staff, more than is necessary.

So those are the issues,
and I'd be happy to answer
any questions you might
have.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Any
questions for Mike?

Mike, is this a follow-up
on several meetings back.
We had somebody from the
trappers' association come,
and tell us about their
concerns?

MR. BERGER: Yes. This is
an additional simplification,
getting rid of things that
are not really necessary,
and simplifies the whole
process.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Any
other questions for Mike?

COMMISSIONER HOLT: It makes
a lot of sense. Just simplify
it now. Get of out it as
much as we can.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: It's
a good trend, I think is
what Commissioner Holt's
saying. Keep it up. Simply
where we can.

If there are no further
questions or discussion
without objection, I authorize
staff to publish this item
in the Texas Register for
the required public comment
period.

Thank you, Mike.

And John Herron is next
up with the proposed raptor
proclamation.

MR. HERRON: Thank you,
Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
My name is John Herron.
I'm the program director
for the wildlife diversity
program.

Today I will be speaking
to you about our regulations
for falconry.

The recommendations we're
bringing forward to you
are based on recommendations
of an ad hoc falconry advisory
board that we have, made
up of falconers and the
Texas Hawking Association.

I know the changes are
large. Just as a quick bit
of background. A falconer,
in order to be able to take
and possess a raptor, which
is otherwise a protected
bird, has to have both a
federal and a state permit
to do this.

The changes that I'll be
talking to you about today
basically bring our regulatory
language more in line with
federal language, clarify
some distinctions we have,
such as defining what an
apprentice, general and
master falconer are.

The idea here is, while
we're adding language, really
in terms of simplification,
this is just making our
regulation clearer and showing
that the requirements we
have are similar to what
is already in federal rule.

The changes we're proposing
for the most part are minor
language, as I've said,
that are already in federal.

We've made some changes
to the regulation specifying
what an apprentice, general
and master falconer are.
We have three different
permits we issue based on
experience.

I'll touch on that in a
little more detail, briefly,
but the point is to make
it clearer in regulation
exactly what it is to be
an apprentice, general,
master and to explain to
people who are applying
what it takes to qualify
for those and have that
clearly stated in regulation.

We're also adding some
language allowing apprentice
falconers to assist master
and general falconers when
they display their birds
for educational permits.

The purpose of the falconer
regulations, first and foremost,
is to allow people to possess
raptors for the purpose
of hunting. But since these
folks already have these
birds, it's a valuable tool
to use to show school kids
and others exactly what
a hawk or a falcon is.

So we do allow falconers
to use these birds for educational
display as well. You'll
often see that at Wildlife
Expo, out here where John
Carter has his display.
Several of the falconers
are often there with their
birds as well.

The point is we'll allow
apprentices to assist with
this as well. Currently,
that is not allowed.

We're adding a provision
that an apprentice falconer
must track their own wild
bird. Sounds like an unusual
requirement. But this was
something recommended be
the Falconry Advisory Board.

One of the important things
in the apprentice program
is teaching a falconer the
skills they need under the
supervision of a master
or general falconer.

And one of those skills
a falconer needs is to know
how to trap a bird. If your
bird flies off, you have
to retrap it. So rather
than allow an apprentice
to start off the commercially—bred
bird, we think it's important
that they actually go out
there and catch their first
bird.

Ironically, working with
a wild bird is easier than
working with a captive—bred
bird. A captive—bred
bird is often imprinted
on people. It acts differently
than a wild trapped bird
does.

Really most apprentices
start with a wild trapped
bird. We're really just
clarifying this in regulation.

We're also clarifying what
the trapping year is. Our
current regulations say
that a falconer can trap
only a certain number of
birds in a year, to protect
the resource.

But we never said what
that year was — calendar
year, fiscal year. So what
we're putting in regulation
now is clearly stating that
that is from July 1 to July
30 of the following year,
which corresponds with the
permit year, the timing
that a permit is valid.

We're adding some provisions
regarding raptor propagation.
These are people who are
allowed to captive breed
and sell raptors.

We're basically saying
that one has to be a general
or master falconer to be
a breeder or propagator,
that apprentices do not
qualify. Again this is recommended
by the board.

Finally, we're including
a provision — there
is already something in
regulation that says for
several species of raptors — that
you must band the bird.

Up until now, we would
issue the band first, if
someone thought they were
going to trap a bird, and
then they would go. But
if they were unsuccessful,
they were in possession
of a band that they would
have to return.

So now we're just putting
in regulation that basically
we would issue the falconer
the band after they have
taken the bird into possession,
which should simplify things
for everybody.

Just to show you what the
type of requirements are,
we're talking about — this
one for apprentice falconers — basically
we're repeating what's already
in federal rule:

That an apprentice has
to be at least 14 years
of age or older; must have
a sponsor; has to pass a
written falconry test, that
they can possess one of
three very common species
of raptors, and they may
replace up to one bird a
year.

These have always been
the rules, but what we were
finding was that there was
sometimes confusion when
we were telling someone
that they did not qualify
to apply for an apprentice.
So by putting these explicitly
in our regulations, we think
it will be clearer for everybody.

And just to show you what
the requirements are for
general and a master falconer
as well — one of the
things we're adding to the
regulation is that under
the two years of apprenticing
to become a general falconer,
again we never really said
what was experience.

So we're clarifying that
this basically means that
in those two years, the
individual will have actually
flown their bird and hunted
with it both those hunting
seasons.

With that we'll be coming
back in May to discuss this
in further detail with you,
after we've gotten public
comment, and I'd be happy
to answer any questions
you might have.

COMMISSIONER HOLT: How
many falconers are there
in the State of Texas?

MR. HERRON: Not very many.
Probably about 200. It's
not an easy thing to do.
A lot of people dream of
being a falconer, but taking
care of a bird takes a lot
of time during the day.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
Were there any other issues
the Advisory Board raised
or wanted on the agenda?

COMMISSIONER HOLT: Nothing
in here that crosses with
the federal. You've got
that cleaned up.

MR. HERRON: Nothing at
all. One of the things we're
looking forward to in coming
years — you may see
us again on this — is
now that the peregrine's
been delisted, I suspect
we'll be coming forward
at some point, allowing
falconers to use wild peregrines
again.

And there is some discussion
about doing away with the
dual permitting system,
and we've been in discussions
with the Fish and Wildlife
Service — basically
states do most of the work
right now.

We do the site inspections;
we do the tests. So it may
well be in the future, the
feds may do away with their
permit and just defer to
the states to do this.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Commissioner
Ramos?

COMMISSIONER RAMOS: Yes.
You mentioned there's a
limit of either two or three
falcons? How do we enforce
that. In other words, do
we keep an inventory of
a falconer and his two or
three animals? And is that
by means of the leg bands?

MR. HERRON: We only band
a few species. But whenever
a falconer takes a bird
into possession, they have
to fill out a form and report
that they have that bird.

As soon as they've taken
possession, we and the Fish
and Wildlife Service have
those forms on file. So
if a complaint did come
up, a game warden would
be able to go in, see what
birds they have in possession
and see what records we
have on file.

So it's by species, sex.
It's fairly specific. There's
not a lot of room for wiggle
there.

COMMISSIONER RAMOS: But
the individual birds themselves
are not identifies by means
of —

MR. HERRON: Not any more.
At one point we did require
all falconry birds to be
banded. We currently only
require it for goshawks,
peregrines and Harris hawks,
which are rather unique
and a high demand species.

COMMISSIONER RAMOS: I noticed
that in the proposed regulation,
you can replace one. I would
assume then, that if I have
three and I lost one, you
have an obligation to report
that?

MR. HERRON: Yes.

COMMISSIONER RAMOS: And
then at that point you're
entitled — but not
until that reporting mechanism
has occurred.

MR. HERRON: When they've
lost a bird, they're supposed
to report it to us immediately.
And then based on your level — if
you're an apprentice you
can replace one; if you're
a general, you can replace
two a year; if you're a
master, you can replace
three.

In fact many falconers,
once they've caught the
bird, often only keep it
for the hunting season,
and then will release that
wild bird again. Actually,
it does better in the wild
during the winter months
than it does in captivity.

So you often see falconers
cycle through those birds — catch
them, hunt them for a season
and then release them back
into the wild. This does
not include — falconers
can also have non—native
birds that they don't have
to have under our permits.

Sometimes they'll have
captive—reared Arabian
birds and that sort of stuff
that are in addition to
what we have.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
Non—native birds don't
apply to the —

MR. HERRON: Correct. This
really relates to a falconer
who's taking a native bird
that our department has
authority over.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Commissioner
Holmes?

COMMISSIONER HOLMES: Are
there many birds imported
from abroad?

MR. HERRON: I don't think
we see them imported so
much any more. But there
certainly are non—native
species that are in the
captive—breeding type
of thing. So there's several
Asian and European varieties
of birds that can be purchased
commercially.

I don't think we really
see the import and export
of birds caught in the wild
overseas. That is not the
case.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
at one time had an issue
about birds that were being
caught and sold overseas.
I remember that, if that's
what you're referring to
in south Texas. There were
a few incidents.

COMMISSIONER HOLMES: It
goes both ways.

MR. HERRON: There's always
been a few situations where — particularly
with internationally or
nationally endangered birds — a
few people who will try
to do things illegally.
They get a lot of attention,
but it's really a very,
very rare occurrence.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Okay.
Phil?

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
Very quickly. I'd like to
see if they want to raise
the limit on the number
of birds they can keep.
I doubt with those numbers
there's any resource issue
there.

In the past, I've seen
falconers with six or seven
birds. They're really active.
They keep going. So to me,
limiting to two or three
is not really necessary,
if they're demonstrable
responsible people, which
they would have to be to
get to that point.

You could ask them if that's
something they'd want us
to consider from the resource
standpoint. I certainly
encourage you to —

I'm glad you're moving
on the peregrine fund. I
think the people that started
the fund have been the falconers,
and they're the best advocates
for conservation in that
arena. So anything we do
to encourage them is great.

MR. HERRON: Yes. I think
a big reason the peregrine
has come back has been the
captive breeding techniques
that the falconers developed.

We're thinking we're going
to see — addressing
the peregrine fund first,
the Service is allowing
in western states for states
to allow a limited number
of peregrines to be taken
from the nest.

We're expecting to see
federal rules published
that would allow Texas and
states further east, that
are in the migratory path,
to take what we call, passage
or migrating birds.

I don't think it's going
to be in time for us to
put a new regulation into
effect to allow it this
fall. But at least it will
get us in place for next
fall.

Regarding the possession
limit, certainly no disagreement.
The one thing we have to
work out is — the
limits we have are also
in federal rule. So while
we could increase a limit,
federally they'd still be
limited to one, two or three
birds.

That may be something we
could address further down
the road, as we combine
our regulation and —

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: How
would do a memorandum of
understanding with Fish
and Wildlife that our regulations
would be at least as stringent
as federal, and then we
would have one permit instead
of two.

MR. HERRON: Yes. I've been
working on a committee with
several other states. We've
been working on draft language.

It would actually be federal
regulation that would say,
here are the requirements
that states must meet to
issue falconry permits.
And basically would just
require us to provide them
data, the forms that we
were talking about, and
who has what birds.

Because they have an obligation
as well. These are federally
protected species. As long
as they're getting the information
they need, we don't see
a reason for us to issue
a permit and them.

Oft times, the few problems
we have seem to be that
disconnect where someone's
able to get their state
but not their federal permit
in a timely way. We're more
than willing in Texas to
take on that little additional
work required with the form
work.

As I said, we're doing
95 percent of it already.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Thank
you, John.

For those of you who wonder
why we're spending so much
time on the raptors — I've
got to tell you, knowing
a few of these falconers,
particularly Peter Jenning,
who I think you know, one
of the founders in the peregrine
fund.

This is something that's
really hard to fake. These
people are really good.
There are not any casual
falconers.

This is a group that — unlike
some advisory committees,
this is one group that I'm
very interested in what
they have to say about subjects
outside their area of falconry,
because they're serious
outdoors people and naturalists.

I'm glad we're working
so closely with that Falconry
Advisory Committee. It's
a very good group.

Any other questions for
John?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Thank
you, John.

If there are no further
questions or discussions,
without objection I authorize
staff to publish this item
in the Texas Register for
the required public comment
period.

Next up, Item 4 - Migratory
Game Bird Proclamation.

Dave Morrison, filling
in for Vernon Bevill.

MR. MORRISON: Good morning.
Thank you, sir. My name
is Dave Morrison. I am the
waterfowl program leader
for the Wildlife Division.

For the most part, migratory
bird regulations being proposed
are unchanged from last
year, with the exception
of adjustments for calendars.

However, we are suggesting
modifications to the central
and south dove zones, particularly
around San Antonio.

We should add that proposed
dates currently being proposed
may be altered significantly
depending on federal rule—making
processes and breeding and
habitat surveys that have
yet to be completed.

We proposed maintaining
the same season length and
bag limits for doves, by
zone that the Commission
approved last year, except
the south zone will open
on September 24, which is
the first Friday after September
20.

And we're suggesting slight
modification in the south
zone boundary being considered.
We're proposing to move
this boundary line from
interstate highway 10 to
U.S. highway 90 and South
Loop 1604 and moving that
area from the south zone
into the central zone.

The reason for this is
trying to take advantage
of a big bunch of white-wings
that are in the San Antonio
area. This matter has been
discussed with the Service,
and we don't believe it's
going to be any problem
in the discussion.

However, a final decision
on this matter will not
be forthcoming until later
this year, particularly
around June.

But we're still concerned
about the possibility of
some strings being attached
by the Service to monitor
this change to look at the
late impacts on late—nesting
doves.

With respect to special
white-wing dove area in
the south zone, we're proposing
the first cool two weeks
in September, as we have
in the past. The last two
splits are similar to last
year, but the bag limit
is unchanged from previous
years.

The September teal season
can be either nine or 16
days, based on breeding
population surveys. The
population estimates allow
for a 16 day season. We
suggest September 16 through
the 26.

If those same surveys recommend
a nine—day season,
we would recommend September
18 through the 26. Current
Commission policy is to
have the season as late
in September as possible,
and these season dates meet
these criteria.

Changes for rail and gallinule
are being proposed to allow
for rail and gallinule season
to run concurrently with
the 16—day September
teal season.

The first split of the
rail and gallinule season
coincide with the 16—day
September teal season. The
remainder of the days will
be taken during the regular
duck season.

With respect to snipe,
we're proposing to move
that season a little bit
later to open on October
30 and run through February
13, provide additional days
later, particularly in February,
when we think that snipe
hunting can be at its best
here in Texas.

With respect to duck season,
no changes are being proposed
at this time. All dates
that are going to be presented
are based on a liberal package.

Understand that we're still
early in this game, and
lots of things can happen
between now and the final
approval of these dates.
A lot of the surveys have
yet to be done, and we're
still waiting on that.

Should another option be
selected, the dates will
be adjusted to reflect these
changes.

These are the dates for
the three duck zones in
Texas — the high plains
mallard management unit,
north zone, south zone.
The dates here are simply
adjusted for calendar and
represent the most liberal
season under the liberal
package.

The bag limit for the liberal
season is shown here with
species and sex restrictions
as indicated. I should point
out that at a recent Central
Flyway Council meeting,
a recommendation was passed
and has been forwarded to
the Service for consideration.

This is called the hunter's
choice option. Key elements
of the hunter's choice option
are one — going from
a six—bird to a five—bird
bag limit.

Another important aspect,
and this is a key aspect
is that this type of bag
limit structure would eliminate
closed or partially closed
seasonal species like canvasback
or pintails that we've experienced
in the past.

If the hunter's choice
option is selected, as I
said, it would go from six
ducks to five ducks with
species, sex restrictions
as follows. You take three
scaups in a day, two wood
ducks, two redheads.

Where the change comes
in this other group of birds:
mottled duck, hen mallard,
pintail and canvasback.
Under the hunter's choice,
only one of those birds
can be taken. You take one
hen mallard or one mottled
duck or one pintail or one
canvasback.

You can use the mallard
hen as the buffer, to try
to reduce the harvest on
these species that the Service
has a little bit of concern
with. For all other birds,
it will be five.

Proposed seasons and bag
limits for both dark and
light geese in the west
zone are the same as last
year, simply adjusted for
calendar. No changes are
being proposed for the dark
geese season in the east
zone, or for light geese
either.

We have maintained the
north and south segment
at this time. This proposal
is predicated on a liberal
duck season framework.

Should duck frameworks
be something other than
liberal, we should give
some consideration to reuniting
the north and south segment
for the light goose in the
east zone.

We continue to recommend
a conservation order, with
basically the same season
dates as last year, essentially
starting the day after the
duck or goose season closes
in the respective zones.

And again we have maintained
the north and south segment
of the east zone.

With that I'd like to conclude
my presentation. I'd be
happy to answer any questions
you may have.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Dave,
I've got a couple of questions.
The Migratory Game Bird
Advisory Committee — I
know they've dealt with
a few of these questions.

It was my understanding
that their recommendation
was that the central zone,
as in your example there
with the south end of 1604,
that that actually be moved
all the way to 57, and to
include that area south
of 90 in the central zone.

Because right now there's
a lot of outfitters and
hunters and other folks.
They're open on one side
of 90, and you've got all
these birds. There are just
as many birds on the other
side. Those from San Antonio
know the situation.

There was some recommendation
there that would increase
opportunity. Would that
require some sort of biological
data to clear that with
the Service?

MR. MORRISON: Bottom line,
when you start looking at
zone changes, the Fish and
Wildlife Service does get
involved.

I know that Jay Roberson
has looked at some of that
stuff. I think Jay is here.
He may be better equipped
to handle this.

But the bottom line — when
you start fooling with zones,
whether it be for ducks,
dove or what have you, the
Fish and Wildlife Service
does have to look into this,
and particularly when you
start getting to that south
zone area.

Because within that south
zone, there are — based
on past history, you can
open that season no earlier
than September 20, because
of the concern of late—nesting
birds.

So when you start wanting
to shift that south zone,
the need for following up
with data to support that
you're not impacting those
birds does become more apparent.

Right now we're in the
middle of doing some tremendous
dove—banding work
that is going to address
a lot of these questions.
I know that that's been
looked at. But beyond that,
that's as far as —

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: This
is a piecemeal zone change.
I mean, it's a very small
one, but it is an actual
zone change. Right? They
would be in the central
zone —

MR. MORRISON: Again, in
June Mr. Cook is going to
have to make a decision.
Should the Service put these
restrictions on, that we're
going to have to evaluate
the impact on late nesters.

Mr. Cook's going to have
to make the decision. Are
we willing to go that step?
Because that is still part
and parcel to the proposal.

But should the Service
come back and say yes, We
will grant you this zone
change. However, this is
what you're going to have
to do to implement this
zone change. At that time
we'll have to determine
do we have the wherewithal
to meet their criteria.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: And
by that, you mean the data.

MR. MORRISON: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Okay.

MR. COOK: If they make
us do a huge amount of work
for data collection, we
probably won't be able to
have the manpower to do
it. If it's a reasonable
amount, we'll do it and
move on, if we believe it's
beneficial to us.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Commissioner
Ramos?

COMMISSIONER RAMOS: Yes.
Dave, we on the Commission
are always looking at opportunities
for the youth to get an
edge on hunting. Have we
focused at all in looking
at these seasons, perhaps
incorporating a youth—only
season?

I know historically we've
never done that. Is that
something we might look
at in the future?

And I know that to a great
extent the Fish and Wildlife
Service determines the seasons,
but have we looked at that
or considered perhaps looking
at a youth—only season,
where we can get more of
the youth involved.

MR. MORRISON: We do have
the youth—only duck
days. It's the weekend typically
preceding the opening of
the duck season. So we do
have the youth duck hunting
days.

With respect to the dove
season, it gets into a situation
with federal frameworks.
The earliest you can open
a season for doves is September
1.

There has never been a
stipulation on the part
of the Fish and Wildlife
Service to add days to the
dove season, specifically
for that purpose.

They have done that for
waterfowl. But there's never
been a position taken by
the Service to open it up
additional days for dove
hunting. So currently we
have a 74—day season
for duck hunting. We actually
get 76. We get those extra
two days for duck hunting.

So that was an additive
impact. They have never
made that same offer from
the standpoint of dove hunting,
because the position here
in Texas is that we open
the dove season on September
1.

That's the earliest you
can open the season by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
So unless they're willing
to add days, because you
can't open any earlier.
So you'd have to put them
on the back end, when nobody's
going to take advantage
of them. It's a dilemma.

COMMISSIONER RAMOS: I'd
like to see us address the
issue. It's something that
would be helpful to the
youth of the state. Obviously,
we're subject to whatever
they decide, but it would
be at least an overture.
Maybe with time —

MR. MORRISON: We can certainly
take it through the SRC,
the Service Regulation Committee.
They will meet in June.
We do have two representatives
from the Central Flyway
that do carry the responses
from the various states
to the Service Regulation
Committee.

I will be certain to pass
that along to them to at
least approach that to find
out what options they may
be willing to provide.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: We
already have open dove season
now, at least in the south
zone. The late one went
all through the Christmas
vacation. So you wouldn't
want to take anything away
from —

MR. COOK: Mike, that was
discussed some back when
they did the duck addition,
when they added the time
for youth, which like Dave
says, was an additive. That
issue on dove was discussed.

It's kind of like what
Dave says, we're starting
it as early as we can. Period.
So even if we got — there
was some discussion about —

MR. BERGER: The Service
really doesn't even have
the authority to open before
September 1, because we
have our treaties with Canada
and Mexico on migratory
birds. The earliest you
can open it is September
1.

So if you had a day at
the start — the opening
weekend, say — that
was for youth only, you
would be

MR. COOK: Shot.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: You
would get a result different
from what you intended.

MR. BERGER: I just wanted
to say on moving the dove
zone, we are talking about
an incremental, where we
will be required to provide
some data, but it would
be minor data compared to
what it would be to move
it to where you talked about
farther south.

We would probably have
to collect data in advance
for several years. I think
we're going to starting
trying to amass that data.
But it would take several
years of data for the Service
to even consider a move
that far to the south for
that zone.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: It's
important I think for a
couple of reasons. Number
one, we've learned through
the public hunting program,
and I think we all know
intuitively, that dove hunting
is probably the easiest
entry hunting experience,
for most people certainly
a lot cheaper than duck
hunting or quail hunting
or other things people would
be able to start out with.

And the public hunting
opportunities are important.

Number two, I think it's
pretty clear that the white-wing
has saved itself by moving.
Rather than saving its habitat
where it was, it moved.

Anybody that's experienced
those flights of literally
hundreds of thousands of
white-wings outside of San
Antonio, it's pretty impressive.

It's a great advertisement
not only for the resource,
but hunting opportunities
close to a major city. My
guess is it's the same here
in Austin.

So anything that we can
do to match that opportunity
with the reality — I
know you're working with
the constraints there of
the Treaty and the Fish
and Wildlife Service.

One question. I understand
the Treaty for September
1. But the September 20
on the south zone, that's
official Fish and Wildlife
regulation? That's not treaty.

MR. MORRISON: That's based
on previous research that
indicated that this is the
imaginary line where the
impact on late season nesting
doves will be minimal.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: I
see.

MR. MORRISON: So, yes,
that is a Fish and Wildlife
Service framework issue.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: But
we open the special white-wing
early in September right
down there on the border.

MR. MORRISON: Special white-wing
season essentially was kind
of a gimme, if you will.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: We
need more gimmes.

MR. MORRISON: Granted that
was a gimme from many, many
years ago, and that was
the one exception that they
granted. Because at the
time it was predominantly
it was a white-wing season.
So that was kind of a gimme.

We recognized that the
harvest was predominantly
white-wings, late—nesting
issues wasn't that big of
an issue. So that was the
reason for the first gimme.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: But
I think the point is — and
Commissioners Ramos and
Holmes just hit on it — there
may be an opportunity for
a new season. But there're
more white-wings outside
the special zone now than
there are within it.

COMMISSIONER RAMOS: We're
just saying let's focus
on that. If it happens,
great, it's another opportunity
for the youth, and if it
doesn't happen, we understand.

MR. MORRISON: Yes, sir.
I'd by happy to.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Phil?

MR. MONTGOMERY: Quick question.
A few years ago, we had
flexibility on length of
season versus bag limit.
Are the comments you're
getting now from constituency
groups generally supportive
of the choices we've made?

MR. MORRISON: Back when
that was essentially a one—year
process, because we were
going from this very restrictive
season, getting into better
habitat conditions, and
so it was just kind of a
trial and error.

Since 1996 we've been under
the adaptive harvest management
process. Basically, adaptive
harvest outlines season
length and bag limit. This
hunter's choice is a step
away from this adaptive
harvest management.

In answer to your question,
we don't really have those
options of more days, less
ducks. The options are pretty
well spelled out.

MR. MONTGOMERY: On the
mourning doves I believe
we had some choices.

MR. MORRISON: We had the
15 and 60 or the 70 and
12. And those are still
maintained.

MR. MONTGOMERY: People
are happy with that? Where
we come down on that?

MR. MORRISON: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: What
did the Migratory Bird Advisory
Committee have to say about
the reduction of bag limit
from six to five in return
for the —

MR. MORRISON: This essentially
is a very new concept. This
recommendation just came
out of the recent meeting
in Spokane a couple weeks
ago in March.

This is something that's
been kind of kicked around
for the last couple of years
but has never really reached
the stage that it's at.

Because there's some things
on the horizon that we're
seeing, the Council made
the decision we want to
keep this on the front burner
with the Service.

The likelihood of the Service
actually accepting this
is pretty slim, simply because
it is such a major deviation
from adaptive harvest management,
but the Central Flyway Council
firmly believes that the
proliferation of these seasons
within seasons — partially
closed seasons — and
with the concern of other
species — mottled
duck being one — that
you could see more and more
species added to these partially
closed seasons.

Right now it's only pintail
and canvasback. But what
happens if something happens
and they decide, Okay, we
want mottled ducks. Scaups
are seeing some decline.
Well, we'll throw scaup
in there.

All of a sudden you've
got four species that are
closed or partially closed.
We're trying to take a proactive
approach within the Central
Flyway to address this before
it becomes a bigger problem.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: I'm
still philosophically opposed
to bag limit reductions,
but I see your point, that
if not the exception starts
to swallow the rule, and
then when you read the fine
print, you find out that
it's really not — it's
six of two or three species
maybe.

MR. MORRISON: In reality,
I understand that. We've
had a lot of comment from
duck hunters in Texas, saying,
Let's go from six to five.
So that part for duck hunters
in the state of Texas is
probably not going to be
a big issue.

I think that if you look
at it from the perspective
that this ruling could be
a liberalization, because
we're getting away from
that closed season on pintails.
So a guy can shoot a pintail
if he chooses to.

So I view it just a little
bit differently that we're
trying to take a more liberal
approach for the long term.
And I don't believe that
it'll be tremendous hue
and cry going from six to
five.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: So
the point being that you
may have a bag limit of
six, but because of all
the special closures, in
practical reality you don't.
But if you —

MR. MORRISON: It gets too
complex for a poor old duck
hunter out there. Duck hunting
regulations are pretty complex
as it is.

If you start throwing in,
Well, we're going to close
the first 39 days for canvasbacks,
the last 39 days for pintails,
you're going to have a calculator
to figure out what day is
it.

And that's the whole purpose
behind the hunter's choice.
It's a simplification process
so that we don't lose duck
hunters.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: I'm
for that. I just don't always
be in the position of trading
bag limit for simplification.

Any other questions for
Dave? This is pretty complicated
stuff.

Are we going to run this
through the Advisory Migratory
Board?

MR. MORRISON: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Billy
Osborne's group there — they
work really hard at this
and we need them. That's
a broad base group. And
I really want to know what
they think.

I don't believe any actions
are required by the Committee
at this briefing. Good.

Item Number 5 - Proposed
Candidate State Parks for
Public Hunting.

Vickie?

MS. FITE: Good morning.
Mr. Chairman, member of
the Regulations Committee.
My name is Vickie Fite.
I'm the public hunting coordinator.

I'm here today to brief
you on the candidate state
parks proposed for hunting
for the upcoming year, and
to establish an open hunting
season on public hunting
lands for 2004—2005.

Candidate state parks proposed
for the hunting season of
2004 and 2005 — last
year we hunted on 42 of
our state parks. This year
we're going to be hunting
on 44.

The proposal includes two
additions. Seminole Canyon
last year was dropped out
of the program due to drought
conditions. They took a
one year hiatus. This year
we're bringing them back
on for hunting again.

The second one is Guadalupe
River, north unit. This
is a parcel of undeveloped
park land that is separated
from the developed portion
of the park by the river.

The unit will offer hunts
in five different categories.
It will have an additional
30 permits added to the
program.

The reason why we're calling
this a separate unit is
that the hunts have different
means and methods. They
fall on different dates
from the other hunts that
are on the lower part of
the Guadalupe River State
Park, and the bag limits
will be different.

There's also a separate
entrance that will be used
for that part of the park.
So we are calling it a separate
unit.

Special drawn permits.
I want to take a moment
to give you a quick overview
of where we were last year
and where we propose to
be this year, as far as
our special drawn permits.

Last year overall, which
includes both the WMA's
and the state parks, there
were 6,051 special drawn
permits that were proposed.
This year there are 6,188
permits that are being proposed,
which is an increase of
137 permits.

In parks alone last year,
there were 1,948 permits
that were proposed. This
year there are 2,000 permits
that are being proposed,
for an increase of 52 permits
on parks.

Last year in our youth
categories, overall which
is both the WMA's and the
state parks. We had 724
special drawn permits this
year. There are 790 special
drawn permits being proposed,
which is an increase of
66 overall permits for youth.

The last item of business
that I have is to establish
an open season on public
hunting lands.

In order for public hunts
to be conducted on TPWD
public hunting lands, during
the period of September
1, 2004 through August 31,
2005, an open hunting season
must be established.

Chapter 62 and 81 of the
Texas Parks and Wildlife
code gives the Commission
the authority to open seasons
for hunting on state parks,
wildlife management areas
and public hunting lands.

We will come back to you
in May for full adoption
by the Commission at that
time.

Mr. Chairman, members of
the Committee, at this time
I would be happy to answer
any questions.

COMMISSIONER HENRY: Would
you briefly describe how
we advertise or promote
hunting on public lands?

MS. FITE: Yes, sir. I can
do that. Actually we have
a booklet that is mailed
out. There are over 40,000
of them that are mailed
out to participants that
took part in the program
in the prior year. We also
do a flyer each year, that
is available at our licensed
vendors that is a tri-fold.

It talks about all of our
public hunting opportunities,
including the drawings,
the old Type II lands, which
are now called the annual
public hunting lands, and
also our big time Texas
hunts. That is available
at the licensed vendors.

This year, we're going
to do a small poster, that
we're going to make available
for each one of the vendors,
that basically says, Do
you need a place to hunt?
It talks about public hunting
lands and the phone number
and the website on where
to get more information
about hunting on public
hunting lands.

COMMISSIONER HENRY: I'm
particularly interested
in the poster or something
that will indicate to potential
hunters that these are available.

The main complaint that
I hear from the people around
the Houston area — groups
talk about the lack of availability.
And many of them, when I've
asked about public hunts,
don't know about them or
don't know how to approach
them or avail themselves
of the possibility.

So anything that we can
do to assist there would
be beneficial. I like the
idea of a poster at the
actual place, the vendor,
should be a big help.

MS. FITE: Yes, sir. And
we try to do news release
each year that tells them,
hey, it's fixing to be time
to sign up for the drawings.
We make that available each
year to tell them the deadlines
and those types of things.

Also to remind them about
the $48 annual public hunting
permit which allows them
access to over a million
acres of land. We do try
to make an effort that way.
Plus the information is
up on our website.

Maybe we can do something
to make it a little more
prominent on the front page,
to where right before the
seasons are going to open,
or right before the time
that this becomes available,
that it will stand out a
little more there also.

COMMISSIONER HENRY: One
of the additional items
that I would propose would
be sure to the extent possible
that correspondents from
the local papers — I
know that they're aware,
but anything that we could
do to get them to assist
in publicizing this.

I know in the Houston area,
Shannon and his group do
a good job of informing
generally what's going on
and what's available. But
any assistance that we can
be given there from the
media would be very helpful.

MS. FITE: Okay, sir. See
if we can do some more news
releases this year.

COMMISSIONER WATSON: I
don't see Government Canyon
listed here. What are our
plans about Government Canyon?

MS. FITE: There were no
proposals to hunt Government
Canyon. We've run into some
problems with Government
Canyon due to the close
proximity of the neighborhood
on Government Canyon.

We had dove hunts there
in the past. There were
complaints about the houses
having pellets falling in
their yards and on their
roofs and stuff. So it was
removed from the program,
and nothing was brought
forward again this year
on Government Canyon.

COMMISSIONER WATSON: Government
Canyon is 8,000 acres. There's
bound to be ample room for
us to hunt there.

MS. FITE: We're taking
a real hard look, along
with the leadership team,
as to what parts are hunted,
what's offered and are there
other available species
or other opportunities that
we might be able to incorporate
in the public hunting program.

The leadership team is
going to issue a report
on that. I've been working
very closely with them on
that. Hopefully we'll get
some insight on that.

COMMISSIONER WATSON: Is
it Phil Gramm's house?

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Don't
let anybody say that this
is not a fearless commission.
Certain commissioners are
fearless.

MR. COOK: We should certainly
look at the possibilities
of including Government
Canyon and interpreting
the data.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: I
would agree with that, and
Commissioner Watson is right.
That is a big area, and
all the flat in front of
the escarpment where the
hill country starts, there
is a lot of country in there.

Now with this other change
on 1604, I would hope there
would be a public dove lease
somewhere there in 1604.
That would certainly be —

COMMISSIONER WATSON: There's
certainly a lot of animals
there.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
I think the question for
you and maybe Walt, Herb
used to call the Bermuda
triangle. How are we doing
with the potential conflicts
between other user groups
and the public hunts?

MS. FITE: On the seven
state parks that are out
there.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
We're pacifying the situation?

MS. FITE: We're taking
a look at that. That is
actually one of the questions
on the survey as to the
parks and close proximity,
your hunt dates comparing
them — try to do a
better coordination on that.

Basically the problem has
fallen in the fact that
December and January are
usually the off season for
a lot of the parks. So we're
trying to get as much hunting
done during that period.

We're trying to stay away
from the holidays where
we can, but sometimes that's
usually the only time we
have for kids to hunt. And
a lot of those times are
during our youth hunts in — and
as Herb would say, the Bermuda
triangle — but the
Edwards plateau area.

So we are aware of that.
We're still looking at it.
We're working on it.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Commissioner
Ramos.

COMMISSIONER RAMOS: In
looking at the youth hunts,
you're exactly correct.
You focus primarily over
Christmas and holidays.
But I don't see too many
seasons during the summer
to where maybe we can have
youth hunts during the summer.

That may be the wrong type
because of the volume of
people that we have. But
that's really when our youth
have a lot of time on their
hands.

MS. FITE: Right. The only
thing that we would really
have available that would
be further into the year
would be like the squirrel
season, which is May 1 through
31.

During the summer, we kind
of stay away from a lot
of it because of the heat
and of course the use that
the parks sustain during
the summer. But we are looking
at every avenue, especially
small game, where the youth
hunts are included.

We've gotten questions
over the last five years
that I've been here on,
could we hunt more here;
could we hunt more there;
could we do some different
species.

One of the things we've
done right now — it's
underway — is with
our natural leaders program,
we identified a project
to review the entire state
parks system and look at
every location and see are
there additional times we
could hunt.

Are there additional species
we could hunt. This was
brought about — if
you'll remember, I talked
about in the past by — by
the bow hunting community
that came and said we need
more opportunities.

Well, we don't look at
just bow hunters or muzzle
gun people or rifle folks.
So we're looking at everything
to see if it makes sense.

The problem we have — whether
it's Government Canyon or
whatever — when you
increase a hunting season,
we have to in almost every
case close that park to
other uses.

You cannot have folks walking
trails or riding bikes through
there and have people with
rifles out there. It just
isn't going to work. You
know that.

So we have to be very careful
that we do not displace
a whole lot of other people
to accommodate a few folks
to hunt.

We're going to try to do
our best. We will have a
comprehensive look at this.
I am very committed to seeing
this happen. Bob and Scott
are as well. And we're going
to do a thorough job on
it.

And I think we'll be able
to bring that study to you
and show you that we've
looked at every place including
Government Canyon, Commissioner,
to see where we can.

At Government Canyon we
also have the city of San
Antonio and some other players
down there that have some
definite interests in what
we do on that location.
But we will look at every
place.

It's not just a state park
review. We've got four folks
working on this, several
of them are from outside
our division, so I think
it'll be a good study.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: I
commend you for your commitment
to public hunting, Walt.
I don't know if we're alone
from other states, but I
doubt that most states are
as committed as we are to
public hunting in state
parks and —

But I think Commissioner
Watson makes a good point.
There's some kind of hunting
that's certainly going to
bring in a lot more people
for a shorter period of
time, like dove hunting.

It would certainly be a
lot more appropriate in
a place like Government
Canyon than deer hunting.
We have the issue of proximity
and high powered rifles.
I think you're doing a good
job of mixing and matching
to the right spot.

I have one question, though.
I was involved — as
many of you were — in
the anniversary of the Federal
Wildlife Refuge and had
the opportunity to ask some
of the leadership at Fish
and Wildlife and the Secretary
of Interior why we could
not coordinate our public
hunting program, which frankly
is much more involved than
the feds public hunting
program in Texas.

Why couldn't we integrate
those properties in our
public hunting program.
It would certainly add a
lot of acreage. They're
committed to it.

Is there any opportunity
for a memorandum of understanding
or some way that we could
integrate those properties?

MS. FITE: Bob, do you want
to address that?

MR. COOK: This may deserve
a longer discussion. The
answer to your question
is, yes.

We have had that discussion
with them. We have an ongoing
discussion with the feds
about hunting on their land.

The message we're getting
there in some cases is,
we don't have the resources
or the people to fool with
it. You do it. Which means
that we would take our resources — people,
time, expenses and do it.
There's a huge proposal
on the table right now.

And I have a meeting in
this room in about ten days
or two weeks with the U.S.
Forest Service, whose lands
in east Texas are currently
open to hunting at no charge
and are [indiscernible]
by many, many people and
have traditionally been
so.

They want us to take over
their property. We already
have hundreds of thousands
of regular Forest Service
land in our public hunting
program that we administer.

There comes with taking
over that responsibility
a significant commitment
of resources. You all know
me. I'd be glad to talk
to them. And I have sent
the message to the U.S.
Forest Service — you
bet, come here, talk to
us.

They're going to come right
here in this room, sit down
with us and talk to us about
this. But I'm interested
to see if, through our permit,
which those hunters now
do not have to have to hunt
in the Forest Service.

All of a sudden we're going
to charge them $48 to go
hunting on a place they've
hunted their entire lives.
We need to be offering something
better. We need to be doing
something better for the
resource.

We're already enforcing
the law. We enforce the
law there just like we do
on the private property
that's very intermixed in
those holdings. So those
are some of the issues involved.

For me just to accept U.S.
Forest Service land into
our hunting program just
to see our number of acres
go up and you all go, this
is good, and our number
of acres increased — I'm
not telling you the whole
story.

I would like to be able
to tell you the whole story
and be able to say to you
that I think we can take
over that situation.

And the people who hunt
there will see a responding
improvement in the program
in their opportunity — because
there are some serious conflicts
now among hunters. We have
helped resolve some of those
conflicts.

We have seen the populations
and the habitat on some
of the Forest Service properties
that we manage — that
we work on the habitat — improve
dramatically over where
they were.

But it is a serious commitment
in resources to do such
a thing on how many hundreds
of thousands of acres of
land are we talking about,
Mike?

MS. FITE: If we take in
the entire forest — if
I may — it'll put
us over 645,000 acres. And
the only forest that we
have in its entirety right
now is the Sam Houston Wildlife
Management Area.

We have parcels of WMAs
within the Angelina, the
Davy Crockett and the Sabine
National Forest. There are
WMA areas out there, but
by no means are they the
entire forest. We also have
part of Caddo National Grasslands.

MR. COOK: One of the big
issues for me and for our
folks here as a land manager — if
this was a contiguous, solid
block of land, that would
be one issue. It is in no
form or fashion a contiguous,
solid block of land.

It's interspersed throughout
from one end to the other
with private land holdings,
residences, homes, including
pets and domestic livestock,
etc., etc.

COMMISSIONER BROWN: Bob,
do they have any idea how
many hunters hunt currently
on that land? Do they have
some method of checking
in, checking out, or is
it just —

MR. COOK: We have very
similar issues with the
Corps of Engineers on some
of the tracts we currently
operate and some of the
tracts they want to give
us, there's not one single
federal — with the
possible exception of the
national park.

The federal agencies who
own and manage land in Texas
are wanting to give much
of that responsibility to
us.

COMMISSIONER BROWN: Can
we get them just to turn
over the land to us?

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Without
the resources.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
Would that be something
we'd really be interested
in. Can we really manage
the whole thing.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: It
has to be exclusive, because
you can't still have people
coming in for free through
the backdoor and us managing
the other side. You can't
have it that way.

Back to the refuges, you
make a good point. If it's
near an existing property,
it's obviously a lot more
practical to manage public
hunts.

Walt, we do have refuges
that are — it's not
contiguous — very
close to other properties
that are open for public
hunting. Correct? Federal
refuges.

Mr. DABNEY: Yes, sir. The
only point I would make,
is unless you're going to
have the scenario like Bob
described, where it's wide
open, you don't know who's
in there or where they are
or anything, which we cannot
operate with.

Every time we add a piece
of land, it's extremely
labor intensive. Unless
you're going to have a free-for-all,
we limit the number of people.
We tell them exactly where
they going to be.

And when we tell them that,
we literally have to take
them out to that spot in
the morning. We pick them
up in the morning, we take
them back in the afternoon.

So my whole staff is tied
up. Every time we add a
new site to this hunting
program, the staff is tied
up with hauling people out
to hunt all day, taking
care of their game. Many
of them haven't a clue how
to do that as well. And
so we're fully involved
in that.

And so when you add more
lands — if we were
to take or somebody was
to give us responsibility
for Fish and Wildlife or
Forest Service lands — we're
going to control it — some
staff has got to be present
there to run the hunt.

It's not just adding acreage.
Bob's exactly right. It's
a big deal. You wouldn't
turn them loose on your
ranch without anything.
And you've got people there
that are at least controlling
how the hunt is taken care
of.

We can't do any less, especially
when we're on narrow boundaries
in close proximity to people
who have nothing to do with
us.

MR. COOK: In closing, let
me say that we have had
a long—term a very,
very positive working relationship
with the U.S. Forest Service,
the Corps of Engineers.
They've been good partners.

They are in a severe budget
crunch. And that is why
a lot of this discussion
is coming up between their
state managers, their state
executive office.

They're looking for ways
to keep these properties
open and have some control
and management. They like
the programs that we have — they
love our public hunting
programs. They would love
it to be part of it. But
it's not a freebie.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: If
we do all the work for free.

Do you have any numbers
on hunter days for just
R.W. Madison state park?

MS. FITE: I can get that
for you. I have to do a
report each year. I can
get that for you.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: If
we're optimizing what we
have, then there's a reason
to look at other opportunities.
But until we optimize what
we've got —

MS. FITE: I would guess
it's around 29,000 hunter
opportunities.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: That's
impressive.

Phil?

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
Just a thought. It sounds
to me that clearly there's
a budget pressure to move
that over to us. It might
be a situation conducive
to private concessions — let
a private operator do it
under a concession arrangement.

The politics of it would
be pretty sensitive, I would
think.

MR. COOK: I think if we're
going to be involved, and
we're going to expect people
to pay into our program,
we need to be offering something
better — habitat—wise
or opportunity—wise.

COMMISSIONER HOLMES: They
have to have some reason.

MR. COOK: They need to
feel good about the results
of the program.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
I like Commissioner Brown's
thought on looking at the
whole package and all the
things we might do for maybe
other revenue opportunities
that help offset —

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: The
income — at least
offset that cost.

Vickie, you can tell the
Commissioners are committed
to public hunting. It's
something we hear a lot
of in Texas. And you're
doing a great job. Any other
questions, Vickie?

MS. FITE: No. On a positive
note, we sat down at the
table with the Nature Conservancy
last week. And they're interested
in becoming a player in
our public hunting program,
where possible.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Good.

MS. FITE: So that would
added opportunity that we
could bring to the table
hopefully next year.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Now
there's a summer hunting
opportunity for all dads
in the Davis Mountains.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
So the public record's clear,
I meant private concessions
which are open to the public
but operated by private
operators, not taking it
away from the public.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Any
other questions for Vickie
on state park hunting which
we expanded.

MS. FITE: We're doing our
best.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Thank
you.

MS. FITE: All right. Thank
you.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: All
right. Great. Thanks for
the presentation. No action
required by the Commission
on that.

On to Item Number 6 - Statewide
Hunting and Fishing Proclamation.

Ken?

MR. KURZAWSKI: Good morning,
Commissioners. My name is
Ken Kurzawski with inland
fisheries division. This
morning I'd like to go over
our proposed changes to
the inland fisheries regulations
and advise you of the public
comment we've received on
those proposed changes.

The first change was on
San Augustine's city lake.
Our proposal there was to
change the limit for largemouth
bass from the current 18—inch
minimum to a 14 taking inch
slot.

We have an abundance of
small bass there. And our
goal there was to increase
the opportunity for anglers
to harvest some of those
fish.

The only public comments
we received on that we're
through our web survey.
Most of the people were
in favor of that. We just
received a few comments
against.

In fact on all our proposals,
the only comments we did
receive were through our
web survey. We didn't receive
any comments at the public
hearing or by phone or emails.
People saved most of those
for the license changes.

Our next change is on Lake
O' the Pines and Pat Mayse.
We had a combined regulation,
experimental regulation,
for hybrids and white bass,
and we're proposing to change
that limit back to the statewide
limits for white bass and
hybrids.

We didn't see any positive
benefits from that change.
The comments received on
that were predominantly
in favor of that change.

Next one was on Lake Murvaul
in Panola County. It was
to change the reservoir
definition to encompass
a downstream tailrace area.
That would extend the enforcement
of the special regulation
that is in place there for
largemouth bass, a 14—21
inch slot.

This would eliminate concern
and confusion among anglers.
Comments received on that
were all in favor.

We have a proposed change
for Lake Pflugerville, which
is a new reservoir scheduled
to open in 2005. We are
proposing to implement an
18—inch minimum when
that reservoir is open for
18—inch minimum length
for largemouth bass, and
also restricting to pole
and line.

And this is to protect
those initial year classes
from over—harvest
when the reservoir is open.
All comments received on
that were predominantly
in favor, except for one
against.

Finally the last proposal
we had to make some changes
to a regulation on community
fishing lakes. The current
regulation there that the
channel and blue catfish
have a 12—inch minimum
length limit and a five—fish
daily bag.

Our proposal was to remove
that length limit and maintain
the five—fish daily
bag. We're doing that to
try and increase opportunity
for anglers there.

In some of the smaller
ones we're doing catfish
stocking. We're interested
in anglers harvesting those
fish soon after they're
stocked.

We did receive some against
on this one. Interestingly,
among persons that did make
comments there were seven
who specifically entered
some comments for and seven
against.

So the ones that did comment,
did think it was a great
idea and were real interested
in us expanding opportunities,
especially promoting angling
for kids.

The ones that were against
were concerned about removing
that minimum length limit
and any impacts that would
have on reproducing populations.
Certainly on most of the
smaller lakes, that's really
not a factor.

On some of the larger CFLs
and some of the state park
lakes that are in the CFL
program, we believe there
isn't a biological issue — that
five—fish bag — even
removing the 12—inch
minimum will still protect
those populations.

We don't have any concerns
that the populations will
be impacted negatively there.

Those are all the proposals
and the comments received
to this point. Do you have
any questions?

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Phil?

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
If I caught that right,
on one lake we're excluding
the tailwaters and one we're
including it. What's the
rationale? What's the impact
of including it in the definition,
or excluding it from the
reservoir definition?

MR. KURZAWSKI: Well, the
first one where we're excluding
it — they're sort
of related.

When we had that special
regulation on Lake O' the
Pines and Pat Mayse, which
were hybrids and striped
bass, there was some fishing
going on below the tailraces
of those reservoirs, when
that special regulation
was on.

We also wanted to include
that area down below, so
they have the same regulation.
So since we're removing
the special regulation,
we don't need those tailwaters
included in that definition
now.

In Murvaul we do have that
special regulation on the
reservoir, and we would
like to include the area
below so those waters will
be the same — the
regulation will be the same
on both spots, for the same
rationale.

Since we're removing the
special regulation, we don't
feel the need to include
it any longer.

COMMISSIONER HOLT: So it's
for enforcement reasons
is the primary —

MR. KURZAWSKI: Right. They
were both tied to enforcement
with the special regulations.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Any
other questions for Ken?

COMMISSIONER HENRY: On
the list I noticed you had
13 of 36, 36 for and 13
opposed.

MR. KURZAWSKI: Correct.

COMMISSIONER HENRY: I'm
interested in the large
number of opposition. What
was it basically again?

MR. KURZAWSKI: Just seven
of those 13 made comments.
And as I said, the persons
that did make comments against
it were concerned about
removing the minimum length
limit having a negative
impact on the reproduction
of the population.

In most of the smaller
CFLs that's really not an
issue. There's not a lot
of reproduction going on,
and we're stocking those.
Maintaining the five—fish
bag will maintain a biological
benefit to that population,
even if the minimum length
is removed.

COMMISSIONER HENRY: Tailgating
on Donato's interest as
far as youth is missing
again, here it's concern.
I noticed in your display,
you portrayed kids fishing
here when you mentioned
that. Was there any particular
interest with the young
people, with regard to the
change in this regulation?

MR. KURZAWSKI: Well, the
comments where people spoke
in favor of it did mention
that they think it's a good
thing to promote fishing
for kids in the smaller
CFLs.

I don't know if there were
any particular — I
can't say if there were
any kids commenting on it.
But the person who did speak
in favor, did think that
would be a positive benefit
for kids — fishing
in smaller CFLs.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: How's
the golden algae coming?

MR. KURZAWSKI: It seems
to be on the downswing.
Didn't have any major outbreaks
this year. It didn't develop
in Lake Texoma to the level
it had in some of the other
reservoirs. So we're thankful
for that.

My presentation today will
be on proposals for the
statewide hunting and fishing
proclamation for saltwater.

The first proposal that
we put forward was to require
degradable panels in perch
traps. These provisions
will be similar to those
that are required in crab
traps.

During public comment period,
we had one set of comments
during the public hearings.
The rest were received through
our web interview program.
We received 45 public comments
on this one. Forty—two
for and three against. Two
of the comments from the
people who were against
did not understand the mortality
issues on ghost fishing
of traps in saltwater. They
felt that they would make
great reefs.

We documented in the past
significant mortality in
traps that are left in the
water over time. So we feel
it's still really important
to have these degradable
panels in there to make
the traps unfishable if
they stay in the water for
any length of time.

We did have another comment.
This individual was for
the proposal, but they recommended
that perch traps be used
for recreational purposes
only. Currently they can
be used commercially.

The second proposal was
to allow the use of minnow
traps in saltwater. Currently
they're only a freshwater
device. People really do
use them out there, but
they're technically illegal.
They're good for small killifish
and things like that for
bait.

We received 42 public comments
on this proposal. Thirty—seven
for and five against. Two
comments again didn't believe
in the issue of mortality
of ghost fishing traps.

We also had two comments.
One individual was for and
one individual was against
the proposal. But they both
recommended that minnow
traps only be allowed for
recreational purposes.

We also had two comments
that indicated that we did
not recommend similar proposals
in degradable panels for
minnow traps, and they would
like to see that happen,
as well as the tagging requirements
that are also required for
perch traps.

The organization SCOT said
they had no problem with
the use of minnow traps,
but they would not support
the proposal if these two
provisions were not included.

The final proposal was
to allow the use of what
we're calling the folding
panel trap — what's
typically sold in sporting
good stores as a star trap
in saltwater for the harvest
of blue crabs and other
crabs.

It works similarly to the
little hoop nets that you
see out there off of piers.
There's no real biological
issue with this one.

We had 37 public comments
total. Thirty—one
were in favor of it; six
were against. Three of the
six actually made a comment
saying, there are too many
traps out there.

Of course, their reference
was to the full—size
crab traps that are used
by both commercial and recreational
fishermen.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: And
the definition you're creating
would obviously be consistent
with what's already being
sold out there.

MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Yes,
sir.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Good.
Because we've already got
one.

MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: It's
being very consistent. There
are several designs along
these lines. Folding panel
traps seem to be as all—encompassing
as possible for the different
variations on this particular
piece of gear.

That's it. I'd be happy
to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Ned?

COMMISSIONER HOLMES: What
was your view about the
minnow trap not having a
degradable panel?

MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: It's
probably an important issue
relative to all of our other
ways we do business.

Unfortunately with the
large variety of designs,
it would be better if we
researched that a little
bit more to come up with
a design of a degradable
panel that would not affect
the fishability of these
immediately.

The other fish traps usually
have fairly large mesh.
When you cut a hole in it
to make the degradable panel,
or you add a wire, it doesn't
affect the fishability of
it.

But if you take the small
minnow traps with the little
quarter—inch mess,
and you cut a big hole in
it, then it makes a difference.

I think it would be better
if we got a chance to look
at that a little bit more
and decide what was the
best approach.

Just off the top of my
head, looking at some of
the ones that I've kind
of looked at the stores,
the easiest way would be
to use the wire requirement
or the twine requirement,
where the trap latches together.

But some of those fall
apart completely into two
halves. Some of them are
plastic jugs that they use.
Some of them are large rectangular
traps that have just hinged
doors on them. So those
are things we'd have to
look at.

COMMISSIONER HOLMES: There's
still a mortality issue.

MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: There
will still be a mortality
issue. Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: And
the folding panel trap was
already legal.

MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: It was
not a defined gear in the
rule. But in those types
of year, there was no need
for a degradable panel,
because their normal position
is open. So even when they're
not operating and they're
abandoned or lost, they
won't fish.

One issue you've heard
a lot about is pheasants.
We have a 30—day season
for pheasants in the panhandle
that was adopted a year
ago in April 2003.

However, due to a printing
error in the hunting annual,
the starting dates were
incorrect. And you modified
the opening date to be consistent
with that annual and simplify
it for people in the panhandle.

So this proposal moves
the season dates back to
where they were originally
to be, starting the first
Saturday in December and
running for 30 consecutive
days.

The public comment was
all through the net and
was 83 for and two against.

The next change has to
do with pronghorn antelope — a
definition change. Pronghorn
hunting permits are issued
to landowners based on herd
units.

Historically the permits
have been issued for a specific
tract of land within those
herd units. Under this system,
landowners who had two or
more parcels within a herd
unit got permits for each
separate parcel of land.

So with this new definition — and
that caused some hardship — so
with this new definition
the landowner with multiple
parcels of land within a
herd unit can use the permits
on any of his parcels, as
long as they're within that
herd unit.

Public comment on this
was 81 in favor and two
opposed.

Spring eastern turkey.
This is in accordance with
our charge to maximize the
hunting opportunity whenever
the resource can afford
it.

The eastern turkey restoration
project has been very successful.
And we're happy to be able
to keep expanding the area.

This proposal would open
the southern half of Montgomery
and Tyler Counties, that
are currently only open
in the north now, and would
add the entire Hardin and
Liberty Counties to the
spring eastern turkey season.

This would be effective
next season, not this season.

We also have a proposal,
again because the restoration
has been very successful
and continues to be more
successful, to expand opportunity
from half a month to a full
month.

So next season the proposal
would be to have the season
from April 1 to April 30,
effective in 2005.

On this public comment
was 98 for and three opposed.

For Rio Grande turkeys,
there are few areas where
some pockets of turkey habitat
extend just barely across
a county line. This would
offer fall hunting opportunity
for turkeys in two counties — Johnson
and Denton Counties.

The comments were 92 for
and seven opposed. Two of
the opposed that showed
up at the public hearing
were opposed to the four—bird
bag limit, not the opening
of the counties.

Of course the four—bird
limit applies across the
state, except for eastern
turkeys, where there's a
one—bird bag limit.

For white—tailed
deer, we're proposing some
new doe days in eight counties.
Those are the counties shown
in red, and those currently
are three—deer counties,
one buck and two does by
permit only.

We determined that these
counties can sustain a limited,
either sex harvest. Therefore,
we're proposing those eight
counties to have four doe
days, that start on Thanksgiving
and run through the Thanksgiving
weekend.

Again, this is in support
of your charge to expand
hunting opportunity wherever
we can.

There were 136 in favor
of this proposal, and 13
disagreed. Some were at
the public hearings and
disagreed with the proposals.

They didn't think the doe
harvest could sustain this
level of harvest. And we
understand there will be
a petition presented tomorrow
to you with a number of
signatures from Grimes County
and perhaps others that
opposed the doe days.

Our feeling is right now
there is a harvest of approximately
one doe per one thousand
or one doe to 1500 acres.

Our experience in some
of these other counties,
where we've added doe days
is that while it might double
the harvest, you're still
only talking about a doe
for 500 to 750 acres. We
believe the resource can
withstand that.

The buck harvest is higher
than that number. Animals
are born in the same fifty—fifty
ratio. So the does are there,
we believe, in adequate
numbers to sustain at harvest.

The last proposal has to
do with white—tailed
deer and the simplification
of the late youth—only
season. We have an early
youth season just prior
to the opening of the general
season. And we have a late
youth season after the close
of most of the general seasons.

And there was some discrepancies
and difficulties and confusion
because of the late season — various
requirements that were put
on youth. So we proposed
some changes to make the
early season and the late
season identical.

Whatever the rules are
in the general season would
apply to both the front
end and the back end.

So in this case, blue counties
would have either sex hunting,
and there would be no permit
required for taking either
sex, unless it was an MLD
property or where LAMPS
permits were issued, in
which case those permits
would still be required.

They would be required
during the general season.
They would be required during
the youth season.

The red counties are where
antlerless deer are available
by permit only. And that
permit would still be required,
whether it was the early
season or the late season.

And the yellow counties
are part blue and part red.
Just a split there. Anyway,
the youth would have expanded
opportunity both before
and after the general season
to do this.

In public comment, there
were 111 in favor and 12
disagreed.

That's our recommendations.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: My
first question, Mike, has
to do with the pronghorn.
And you may want to get
Brewer up here to help you.

I think I'm correct in
my observation — tell
me if I'm not — pronghorns
are an excellent indicator
of rangeland habitat quality
in Trans—Pecos, and
certainly in their eastern
extremity.

MR. BERGER: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: I
know some of that country,
where we've worked [indiscernible]
with some that eastern population.

If I'm correct the permit
system — essentially
when you're working with
a population that can't
sustain an open season.
Is that right? Is that fair?

MR. BERGER: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: If
we're trying to promote
habitat conservation on
private land, what's the
best way to use this pronghorn
[indiscernible] to give
incentive to private landowners?

Would it be through a wildlife
management plan that allowed
them to essentially be outside
the permit process? And
if they're managing good
habitat for pronghorns,
have their own recommended
harvest?

I'm just thinking of ideas.
I don't always want to be
in the permit system, because
that shows we're not moving
the ball, it would seem
to me. We've had good rains
out there, it might be the
opportunity to —

MR. BREWER: My name is
Clay Brewer. I'm the bighorn,
mule deer and pronghorn
program coordinator.

I think it's important
to know that permit utilization
in the Trans—Pecos
is about 50 percent anyway.
So it's not a matter of
loosening things up. They're
very conservative in nature
anyway.

So it couldn't have to
do with bag limits, possibly
with maybe some changes
in season lengths. But I
think you'd meet some resistance
there as well. I don't know.
It may take some creative
thinking. I don't know what
the answer is.

Permit utilization is about
50 percent right now. It's
higher than that in the
panhandle.

MR. BREWER: Probably in
the Trans—Pecos. But
when I left the other day,
we got six inches in Fort
Stockton in two days. So
we're doing okay.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: This
is a good time to be looking.

How's the permit system
work? How are they awarded?
How often?

MR. BREWER: We fly every
year about June or July,
and permits are issued based
on where these animals are
observed — based on
accounts and the amount
of habitat that the landowner
possesses within that herd
unit.

In this particular proposal
that Mike just discussed,
all we're doing is standardizing
what was occurring in the
panhandle, because of the
small property tracts. But
it's based on annual flights
that we conduct every June
and July.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Are
there many landowners that
have contained herds, so
to speak — that the
herd stays on the —

MR. BREWER: No, sir. Not
really. And I think it's
important to note that the
herd units — most
of them were formed early
in the '70s — some
of them before that, based
on the locations of net
wire fencing, highways,
things of that nature, physical
boundaries that prevented
that movement.

Some of that has changed.
Some of its changing again.
New ownership. New net wire
fences coming in. So it's
pretty interesting. In some
areas, we're actually going
back in time.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Really?
You mean people are putting
up fences that —

MR. BREWER: That would
prevent movement. However,
having said that, we are
working with a lot of landowners
to prevent that from happening.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Seems
like a good opportunity
for wildlife management
plans —

MR. BREWER: Oh, you bet.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: — for
those that are interested
in pronghorn.

MR. BREWER: I will tell
you this. We are currently
reevaluating all of our
herd units, trying to redefine
those, which should help.

There was some question
on this issue about — and
several complaints this
year regarding two separate
herd units and what prevented
animals from crossing those
boundaries and that type
of thing.

So we're trying to take
a hard look in existing
herd units — the older
herd units that were established
years ago. But it's still
a good system, still a good
way to do business. We just
need to work out some of
the kinks.

COMMISSIONER HOLMES: Is
there a rule of thumb about
the amount of geography
required for a herd unit?
Or is it basically determined
by physical boundaries,
like highways?

MR. BREWER: I can tell
you it takes a lot of country
to support pronghorns. And
I can show you records where
transplants were done in
San Saba County in the '50s.

Historically two—thirds
of Texas was pronghorn antelope
habitat. But we know from
experience what it takes
to support pronghorn.

Depending on where it's
located and the type of
habitat — you know,
ten thousand acres on up,
in some cases 20 thousand
acres to support a viable
population. It takes a lot
of country.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: It's
one of the first casualties
of fragmentation.

MR. BREWER: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: That's
why I think it's an interesting
one to look at to promote
not only co—ops, private
conservation and other opportunities
there. If you've got a lot
of pronghorns, you're doing
a good job.

COMMISSIONER HOLMES: One
more quick question. How
many animals would there
typically be in a herd?

MR. BREWER: It varies.
Some of the herd units are
larger than others. It can
be anywhere from 100 on
up, just depending on location.
It's kind of a tough question.

I can provide all that
information — the
data by herd unit, what
was counted — if you
would like.

COMMISSIONER HOLMES: Just
curious.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: They
can cover you up. I've asked
those sort of questions
before. You get careful
after a while.

How many pronghorn permits
last year?

MR. BREWER: We had close
to 800, if I remember correctly.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: And
400 harvested, roughly.

MR. BREWER: Yes, sir.

COMMISSIONER BROWN: Do
we have a program where
we are trying to reestablish
the pronghorn in certain
areas that we —

MR. BREWER: Yes, sir. And
as you know, the lack of
rainfall has really hurt
over the last few years.
Most areas that have maintained
population have done so
because of that habitat.
A little bit of rainfall
would help.

One is having good habitat
to put them on. Another
real important issue right
now is hardly anybody has
surplus antelope as far
as the species that we're
dealing with in Texas.

MR. BREWER: Lots of people
want them, but nobody's
willing to give them up.

MR. COOK: Through the years — you
may be aware of this, we
have done several thousand
head of moving animals within
the state from areas where
we had good populations.

For instance Rocker—B
at one point in time over
a two—year period,
we moved about 1200, 1300
head of animals from the
Rocker—B onto 20,
30, 40 different sites across
the state that we thought
were good habitats. That
was 20 years ago or so.

Then we brought in animals
from Wyoming and Colorado — two
sites we thought were good.
Right now, the sources are
just not available anywhere.

Like Clay says, if we get
the rainfall and we get
the people involved in good
habitat management — the
basic herd units are there.
We could populate this thing.

We could get it back in
shape. But looking and eight,
nine year drought of record,
it's been tough.

MR. BREWER: We reached
a 20—year low several
years ago.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: In
1975 when I was at Black
Gap, they were there. You
could see them at Stillwell
store — 50, 60 miles
from the closest antelope
from there on, I would imagine.

MR. BREWER: That's right.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Is
there increased interest
by landowners and hunters
in pronghorn?

MR. BREWER: There doesn't
seem to be a big push. In
fact, the interest — I
would say probably the reverse,
from best I can tell. Antelope
season used to be a big
thing in the Trans—Pecos.

I don't know whether it's
because of declining numbers
and opportunities in years
past. Actually I would say
the reverse, probably.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Because
if you follow the hunting
press at all, there seems
to be increased interest
in some other areas in eastern
New Mexico and Wyoming.

MR. BREWER: Well, the interest
is still there. And if you
look at how many people
apply for a Rita Blanca
grassland, the interest
is there.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Okay.
So we've got to get the
habitat to catch up.

On the LAMPS — do
we have to be concerned
that LAMPS is almost a default
from wildlife management
plan?

One of our jobs here is
we've set for ourselves
over the next ten years
to increase wildlife plan
management acreage. Is LAMPS
essentially alternative
to that for some people?
Does that keep them from
getting in wildlife management?

MR. BERGER: Well, for some
people it is. But it's a
function, too, of tract
size. Where most of the
LAMPS permits are issued,
in east Texas you have small
tract sizes.

And the folks that are
taking advantage of it traditionally
have not been interested
in a wildlife management
plan. They're interested
in killing a doe, being
able to take a doe on their
property. So that's why —

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: So
it's not really keeping
land out of wildlife management
plans.

MR. BERGER: No, it's not
that kind of thing. We're
trying to move to building
co—ops that would
have management plans on
a larger area and move them
into that wildlife management
program and MLDs, so that
they can have a more comprehensive
matter.

But when you're talking
properties that are 50,
100, 200 acres, all interspersed
together, it's difficult
to get a management plan
for deer that's meaningful
on property that size.

LAMPS works for that to
give them opportunity to
take a doe and continue
to work with them, to try
to advance some conservation
on their land.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: So
it can be stepping stone,
rather than an alternative.

MR. BERGER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Good.
Any other questions for
Mike on hunting fishing
proclamation?

The item before you proposes
final adoption of the proposed
changes to Chapter 58, Subchapter
A, the oyster fishery proclamation
and readoption of all other
sections unchanged, as proposed
under the rule review process.

The proposed changes that
we're bringing before you
today primarily affect the
business practices in dealing
with the oyster lease program
and clarification of penalties
within that program.

As a brief recap, there
are two components to the
oyster fishery — the
public reef fishery and
the private lease program.
The lease program makes
up about one—third
of the landings in value
of the fishery and accounts
for about $3 million dockside
value each year.

The lease program is confined
solely within the Galveston
Bay complex. And when you
add the public reef fishery
and the lease program together,
that Galveston Bay complex
accounts for over 90 percent
of all the oyster production
in Texas.

There are 43 separate leases.
The program is designed
to allow for oysters to
be removed from polluted
areas to non—polluted
areas, to allow them to
cleanse themselves or depurate
for a period of time and
then to be harvested and
used as a viable resource.

Based on our discussions
when we proposed this item
in January, I thought that
I'd quickly review the changes
that were made to this program
in the 77th legislative
session.

First, the term of the
lease agreement was set
at 15 years. And the first
terms started on March 1,
2002.

The rental fee per acre
was changed from $3 to $6
per acre, or an amount set
by the Commission. A clause
for a late payment penalty
was added, which basically
says if they don't pay by
March 1, it's that amount
plus 10 percent.

If in fact they do not
pay after 90 days, the lease
is terminated, and it reverts
back to the Department.

In addition, Senate Bill
305 also set renewal and
transfer fees at $200 — just
a flat fee — any time
you renew or transfer the
lease.

In addition, it also basically
created the authority for
us to require a new lease
survey any time those leases
are renewed.

The reason we did this
was we were on old [indiscernible]
technology and based on
new technology, we could
get a much better marker
on those corners of those
leases. And basically we
put that requirement on
the leaseholder.

Also if for any reason
that lease is terminated
or it is not renewed — in
fact on the renewal process,
those leaseholders have
first right of refusal,
if we determine the lease
is still viable.

If they refuse the right
to renew, or it is terminated
because of late payment,
we actually have the authority
to create an auction system
to auction off those leases.

Again the proposals before
you to date are broken down
into two categories. One
is clean up of business
practices of managing the
lease program and those
clarification of penalties.

In the business practice
category, we're proposing
to reduce the time from
five to two days that an
application is due prior
to the beginning of the
transplant season.

This is just reducing our
time to process that. We've
certainly been able to hurry
that up with better technology.
And we think we can do that
and not require that to
be in our office quite so
quickly.

Secondly, we're explicitly
adding the ability to add
the number and what vessel
can be used on any lease
within that permit, when
we permit that transplant
operation.

This is really been going
on out there, but we're
wanting to put it into our
proclamation so that there's
no confusion on that requirement
to the leaseholder.

Within that section, we
also want to make a wording
change to 58.408-A. We use
the word transport there.
Due to some law enforcement
concerns using that word,
we would like to change
that to transplant. We used
that throughout the other
portions of the code.

We're recommending that
amendment or change in today's
language. Our reasoning
there is we want those activities
to be broad over all the
activities of transplanting,
not just the actual transportation
from one location to another.
So we're just wanting to
make sure we clean that
language up today.

Lastly, we're lengthening
the time of reporting of
information to our office
after transplanting. Specifically,
we're requiring that a reporting
requirement occur when harvest
is done.

Right now there is end
date to when they have to
report that harvest. And
we want to go ahead and
put that in the proclamation
as well.

In the clarification of
penalties area, we propose
to specify that when transplanting
or harvesting, the permit
must be on board the vessel
and that any violation of
that permit result in a
five—day suspension.

That five—day suspension
is in line with any other
minor permit violations
that we would have in that
code. Some of the major
ones actually within that
section can give you up
to a 45—day suspension,
but this is one of the minor
violations.

Lastly, we're allowing
harvest by non—mechanical
means in both the recreation
and the commercial oyster
fisheries.

We've had no public comment
to date on any of these
proposals. But I remind
you as I did when we brought
it to you first for proposal,
these changes are in line
with what we've proposed
in the oyster fishery management
plan.

We did carry it to our
oyster advisory committee
before initially proposing
these changes to you.

I'd be happy to answer
any questions at this time.

COMMISSIONER HENRY: Is
there any discussion?

Phil?

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
The right of first refusal — can
it be following an auction
process, so it is at the
auction price rather than
at the prior lease rate?
I think we had some concerns
that the lease rates were
effectively under market.

MR. RIECHERS: We'd probably
have to get a legal ruling
on that. But I don't believe
that was certainly the intent
of the first right of refusal.

The intent was that whatever
the acreage price was set
at by this Commission, that
person would have first
right of refusal at that
price, and then it would
go into an auction system.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
So what's our authority
then to set the price? Do
we have to rehear and reset
prices on them, if they
come up?

MR. RIECHERS: Actually
at any point in time, the
per acreage fee is paid
to us March 1 of each year.
I believe it's within our
authority to change the
price any time within that
15—year lease.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
I thought it was restricted
to $6.

MR. RIECHERS: $6 or an
amount set by the Commission.

COMMISSIONER HOLMES: Higher
or lower?

MR. RIECHERS: Higher or
lower. I think you're right — whichever's
higher is the way it works.

COMMISSIONER HOLMES: $6
is the minimum.

MR. RIECHERS: Yes.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Mr.
Ramos?

COMMISSIONER RAMOS: Have
our violations every had
any monetary sanctions?
I notice the only remedy
here is cancellation of
the permit. We've never
had like a plan of X number
of dollars per violation
or anything?

COMMISSIONER RAMOS: I'm
just wondering why — maybe
I'm looking at the wrong
one, but in Section 58.60,
it talks about the withholding
of permits. But that's not
an exclusive.

In other words, you lose
your permit and in addition
to that we'll have a criminal
charge.

MR. STINEBAUGH: Right.
We also seize and can sell
the oysters and things in
these matters.

MR. RIECHERS: Part of the
reasoning here is due to
the nature of this program,
where we're transplanting
from polluted areas to non—polluted
areas, and the health risks
associated with that kind
of activity, and the extra
manpower on our part to
have to govern those kinds
of activities, we really
have tried to up the burden.

This is really working
with the leaseholder group
to create these, so that
we do have a good handle
on that and we feel like
we can manage it in a reasonable
way.

That we're not creating
extra health risks. We're
in fact creating a marketable,
viable product that otherwise
would not be used.

COMMISSIONER RAMOS: I just
wanted to make sure that
we had sanctions other than
just the suspension of the
lease.

MR. STINEBAUGH: We do,
and we work that quite a
bit. And there are quite
a number of guys fined in
oyster season.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Phil?

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
Two other things, I guess.
Back to the pricing question.
Personally I'd like to see
us figure out how over time
to move to some kind of
market pricing.

I realize that the legislation
may make that difficult.
But just as a broad objective,
see if it's the right way
to do it.

I understand that the state
actually owns the shell,
that we don't recover the
value of the shell at this
point. Again, we've got
a program that's ongoing.
But it seems to me we ought
to set as a course of action
to investigate ways to recover
that value for the state.

MR. RIECHERS: Based on
your comments at the last
meeting, in fact we've already
set up some workgroups with
industry. That will be for
late April and early May.
We're going to go out there,
and that's one of our discussion
items with them.

We do have the authority
for a shell recovery program
now in code. And we're going
to be talking with them
about that. We're looking
at what some of the other
states are doing. Try to
see if there's maybe a place
we can work there to create
a shell recovery program.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Mark?

COMMISSIONER WATSON: Now,
Robin, you say there're
2,800 acres.

MR. RIECHERS: 2,300.

COMMISSIONER WATSON: So
we're getting $13,000.

MR. RIECHERS: Yes, sir.

COMMISSIONER WATSON: And
it's worth three million.

MR. RIECHERS: Well, that's
ex-vessel value. Yes, sir.

COMMISSIONER WATSON: Seems
like to me we may have the
short end of the stick.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Time
for Mark to mark it.

COMMISSIONER WATSON: What
would it be in Louisiana?

MR. RIECHERS: Louisiana
is actually less.

MR. RIECHERS: When we looked
at cost recovery on the
efforts that we put, basically
the State Auditor's report
led to this legislation.

It was around $21 to $24.
I believe it was $21. But
it was somewhere in that
range for the cost of recovery.

They started out talking
about a fee in that range.
By the time it went through
the legislative process,
we were at $6.

COMMISSIONER WATSON: It
still seems like there's
an awful big difference
between 13,000 and three
million.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
I don't understand the ins
and outs of this area at
all, other than we're at
regulated price that's way
below market. And the right
way for the state to recover
value is to move to an auction
process which lets the market
set the price.

To me the broad objective
is going to have to happen
in the legislative session.
We've got long—term
leases, so it's not something
likely to happen any time
soon.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: But
long—term leases are
not unlike some licenses.
They can be bought out.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
Yes. But as a broad objective,
we ought to try to move
to market. The state has
a lot of value it's not
capturing.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: I
agree. What does it take
to do that? Does it necessarily
take legislation?

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
I don't know.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: The
$6 is the minimum.

COMMISSIONER HOLMES: Didn't
you say the $6 number can
be changed on an annual
basis within that 15—year
lease?

MR. RIECHERS: Yes, sir.
We've tried to. When we
set those new lease terms
up and new lease contracts,
we tried to leave the availability
for that open. Yes, sir.

You could consider a pricing
change before our next meeting,
possibly.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Ned.

COMMISSIONER HOLMES: Have
we had any auctions that
have produced a price in
excess of $6?

MR. RIECHERS: We haven't
had any auctions of these
leases. No, sir.

COMMISSIONER WATSON: But
also I think what we would
find is that there are very
few leaseholders. I'm sure
that this is a very closed
community.

I think it would be interesting
to come up with a proposal
and say we're going to charge
$20 an acre and see what
happens.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: You'll
be at that public meeting.

MR. COOK: Robin, the potential
here — let's put it
in this perspective. At
$6 an acre, we're taking
in how many dollars?

MR. RIECHERS: Roughly $8,000.
No, I'm sorry. $12,000.

MR. COOK: $12,000. At $20
an acre —

MR. RIECHERS: At $21, you're
going to bring in about
another $32,000.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: What
do other states do?

MR. RIECHERS: Predominantly,
they charge a per acre lease
fee. We're in line with
what the other states are
doing right now. At least
one other state does do
it based on production off
the leases.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: What
state would that be?

MR. RIECHERS: I think it's
Virginia, or it could have
been Oregon.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Well,
Virginia, that's a pretty
big oyster.

MR. RIECHERS: And in context,
Louisiana and Texas make
up 70 percent of the total
oyster production in the
U.S. right now. Between
those two states, we're
the big states.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Robert?

COMMISSIONER BROWN: Are
the holders of the leases
able to transfer this to
someone else? And do we
have any idea what the cost — they
may be getting $300,000
for a lease that we're leasing
for six bucks.

Are they able to do that?
And do we monitor that?
Do we have any control over
that?

MR. RIECHERS: We don't
have any control. They are
able to do that.

Some of the reason this
got brought up in the legislature
last time — this is
anecdotal, but there was
at least some anecdotal
information to say that
one of those leases transferred
for around, I'm going to
say, $180,000, is what our
[indiscernible] would be.

COMMISSIONER BROWN: We're
trying to set some values
here, just on what they're
doing.

COMMISSIONER RAMOS: So
what you're saying is that
our lease does not have
a prohibition of assignment
or subleasing.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Yes.

COMMISSIONER RAMOS: Nor
do they have to even notify
us, if in fact they do that.

MR. RIECHERS: They have
notify us now. That was
one of the changes, where
we actually do go through
a notification —

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: But
there's no provision to
capture that — the
one you and I call the downstream
value. There's nothing to
capture that.

Could we maybe get a briefing
on what Virginia or Oregon
or whatever state it is
that's getting a royalty
on production values.

MR. RIECHERS: We'll go
out and look and see what
they do and bring that back
to you. Yes, sir.

COMMISSIONER WATSON: If
we get a 10 percent override
on the dock value, we'd
be a lot better off.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Got
them all stirred up, Robin.
Good job.

All right. That was Item
8. If there are no further
questions or discussion
without objection, I'll
place this item on the Thursday
Commission meeting agenda
for public comment and action.

Now we have one item we
skipped. So we will recess
the Regulations Committee
until after lunch. Mr. Bass
and Clayton Wolf can give
us the report from the White—tailed
Deer Advisory group. Now,
I'll pass the gavel to Chairman
Ned Holmes.

(Whereupon, the meeting
was recessed to reconvene
later.)

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: So
we reconvene the Regulations
Committee at 1:10 and have
Item 7 on the agenda, Clayton
Wolf's presentation.

MR. BASS: Just for the
record, the real reason
I'm here is because Donato
invited me to dinner tonight.

Since part of Clayton's
presentation is a review
of the White—Tailed
Advisory Committee, which
I find myself the chair
of now, I thought I'd help
Clayton interpret for you
some of the sentiments of
the Committee on things,
and then as well be able
to get a direct sense of
the Commission.

MR. WOLF: Mr. Chairman,
for the record. My name's
Clayton Wolf, and I'm the
big game program director
in the wildlife division.

Before I begin my presentation,
I do have one introduction
I'd like to make. We have
a made a selection on our
new statewide white—tailed
deer program coordinator.

And he's in the room. It's
Mitch Rockwood.

Mitch, stand up and say
hello to everybody.

We're pleased with our
selection. And I hope to
share all this fun that
I'm having with Mitch, so
you will see more of him.

This afternoon I'm here
to present regulations proposals
that were developed by the
Commission's White—tailed
Deer Advisory Committee.

The first proposal is a
proposal to eliminate double—tagging.
Double—tagging is
a term that we use to describe
the process of putting more
than one piece of paper
or filling out more than
one document that are necessary
after harvesting a deer.

If you hunt on MLDP properties
in Texas, properties that
receive LAMPS permits or
some other permits, you
know that not only do you
have to complete all the
information on that permit
and cut out the date.

But then you've got to
do the same thing with your
license tag or a bonus tag.
And additionally, if not
using a bonus tag, you have
to fill out the back of
your license log with some
more information. Much of
this information is redundant.

And I might add, this is
a proposal idea that our
staff brought to the White-tailed
Deer Advisory Committee.

We were thinking about
putting this on the agenda
for this next regulation
cycle, and it was so popular,
we included it in the package
with the Advisory Committee's
permission. So they're kind
of sponsoring this on our
behalf.

The proposal is to eliminate
the requirement to complete
the license log and utilization
of a license tag for deer
taken under authority of
the permits listed on the
screen here.

In essence, if you harvested
a deer under any of these
permits, you would not have
to place a license tag on
the animal or a bonus tag.
You would not have to fill
out the back of the license
log.

The animal would still
have a paper on it for all
the necessary information
for law enforcement.

The other complex matter
in dealing with permits
is keeping up with your
bag limits. If you harvest
a deer with an MLD and you
utilize a bonus tag, you
do not have to fill out
your license log.

However, if you don't use
a bonus tag, you have to
complete your license log.
Theoretically you could
kill one buck in a one—buck
county with an MLD, and
the back of your license
log will reflect that.

But in fact you are allowed
to kill another buck in
a one—buck county.

This has caused us quite
a bit of confusion, not
just for hunters but even
for staff in trying to interpret
these rules.

So along those lines, the
proposal also includes that
deer taken under the authority
of these permits do not
apply to the statewide deer
bag limit.

In essence, if you do not
harvest deer with one of
these permits, you are restricted
to the statewide bag limit.
You would put your license
tag on there, and you would
fill out your license log.
And you could harvest up
to five deer, depending
on the county.

If you harvest a deer under
the authority of any other
permits, the control mechanism
is the Wildlife Management
Plan or the formulas that
are used to issue those
permits. So there is a control
mechanism on both ends.

And finally, like I said,
if this proposal is adopted,
this will eliminate the
need for bonus tags, therefore
the proposal includes eliminating
bonus tags.

This proposal received
119 comments for and 15
against. Just to summarize
some of those against — most
of those it appeared there
was a lack of knowledge
about the issuance mechanism
for permits.

Folks thought that we just
randomly distributed LAMPS
or MLD permits and didn't
realize there was a limited
number or some kind of control
mechanism that was biologically
based.

The next proposal is to
extend the period of validity
for Level II and Level III
MLDPs.

Currently Level II and
III MLDPs are valid to the
last Sunday in January or
during an open season. For
instance in south Texas,
where there's the late antlerless
and spike season.

So you really have one
level of complexity within
these permits, in that the
ending dates are different,
depending on the county
that you're in.

Additionally, ADCPs run
through the last day in
February. And many ranches
in Texas received ADCPs
and MLDPs.

So while they're harvesting,
their MLDPs may be valid
through the last Sunday
in January or possibly the
1st of February, then they're
no longer allowed to use
those permits.

So they can shift gears,
utilize ADCPs, but the ADCPs
are only valid on antlerless
and spike deer. So you can
see where this is kind of
confusing to keep up with.

The proposal to remedy
this is to extend the period
of validity for Level II
and III MLDPs through the
last day in February.

We theorize that many of
our ADCPs cooperators would
no longer need to apply
for antlerless deer control
permits, could use MLDs
to achieve all their harvest
objectives, putting one
piece of paper on each deer.

The public comment on this
proposal was nine for and
eight against. I do need
to note that the rest of
these proposals did not
get put on our web survey
until a later date, because
of some time constraints.

That's why the volume of
comments is a little bit
lower than the others that
went out with our statewide
hunting and fishing news
release.

To summarize the comments
against, there were some
concern about shooting shed
antler bucks if they utilized
permits late in the season.

At least one individual
commented that if antlerless
deer needed to be harvested,
that the harvest should
be on the front end of the
season, as opposed to the
back end of the season.

Bottom line though is if
a cooperator is unable to
achieve their harvest in
a timely manner, this allows
them the flexibility with
that extra month of time
to meet their harvest objectives.

We have several proposals
that deal with MLDP provisions
within the Triple T proclamation.

These can be quite complex,
so I want to take a moment
to first summarize what
the existing regulations
are before going into proposals.
If you'll be patient, because
this is complex.

Level III MLDP cooperators
may be approved for trap,
transport and transplant
permit or release without
inspection, provided they
meet certain criteria.

Basically in Texas, if
you want to get Triple T
deer, the norm is to get
a site inspection. A biologist
comes to your property.

They determine there is
sufficient suitable habitat
on the property, so the
addition of animals doesn't
result in some kind of negative
impact on the plant community.

However, there are two
instances where a person
can receive deer without
that site inspection. One
is inconsequential release,
which I'll discuss later.

The other one are provisions
provided for MLDP cooperators,
provided that they meet
certain criteria.

One of those is that the
tract must have been receiving
Level III MLDPs for three
years. Basically what we're
talking about is knowledge
of the property.

Although this would exempt
the property from a site
inspection for that winter,
these criteria basically
indicate that the biologist
does have knowledge of the
property through working
with that cooperator.

Anybody that we issue MLDPs
to, we've made at least
one site visit on that property.
And after three years, we've
made numerous site visits.
So there is a knowledge
of the property and what
the carrying capacity is.

The important factor is
that the release of deer
does not cause the population
to exceed the level prescribed
in the Wildlife Management
Plan.

This is a key component
to keep this program habitat—based
and make sure the addition
of deer do not have a negative
impact on the plant community.

Right now the rules indicate
that the release does not
include bucks. I'm not going
to elaborate, but I will
describe in a few minutes
why this probably doesn't
make that much sense and
could be changed.

Finally, one of the more
complex parts of this, the
removal of deer prior to
importing new deer — that's
Triple T deer — does
not cause a population to
be reduced more than 50
percent of recruitment below
the prescribed population
level.

That's language right out
of our rules. I think it
can be best described with
an example a lot easier.

If your wildlife management
plan says that at the end
of the hunting season you
need to have 100 deer on
your property, so you need
to reduce that population
at least to 100.

If your data indicates
that you recruited 20 fawns
on the property that year,
that's your recruitment.
So half of the recruitment
obviously would be ten animals.

Therefore if you want to
make room for more deer,
you can only take that population
level down to 90, basically
down to half of recruitment
below your target level.

Bottom line is there is
a limit on how far you can
push the population down
to make room for new deer.

And just to reiterate,
the most important aspect
of this to keep it habitat—based
is that the population at
the end of these activities
cannot exceed that prescribed
in the wildlife management
plan.

Now the proposals. There's
a proposal that deals with
these Triple T releases
right now. Tracts that have
been receiving Level III
MLDPs for three years are
the only tracts that qualify.

The proposal from the White-tailed
Deer Advisory Committee
is that a tract that is
currently issued Level II
or III MLDPs and has the
data required for Level
III MLDPs can qualify.

In essence we've gone from
three years of participation
to one year of participation.
We've included Level IIs,
but they have to conform
to the same data requirements
of Level III.

That is three years of
population data and two
years of harvest data. So
the biologist does have
a good data set to work
from, so in essence they
can sit at their desks and
make a call on if the Triple
T is to be approved or not
approved.

We had six comments for
this proposal, five against.
Almost all the comments
against where people did
clarify why they opposed
this, folks thought there
should be a site inspection
regardless.

There's a proposal to include
buck deer in these provisions.
You'll recall that I indicated
the release of deer under
these provisions can only
include doe deer. But the
most important aspect is
the total number of deer
on the property.

Therefore, the proposal
is that buck deer can be
included. It's not a matter
of whether it's ten does
or it's ten bucks.

But the fact that it's
ten animals coming on the
property, and each animal
basically eats about the
same volume of forage. So
it keeps it habitat—based.
Comments six for and one
against.

There's a proposal to remove
the harvest limitation on
these properties receiving
Triple T deer. As you can
see on the screen here,
we have the rule that deals
with the 50 percent recruitment
below the target population.

The proposal is to basically
eliminate this requirement.
There would be no limit
on how far that population
could be pushed down prior
to importing more deer.

You still would have the
cap on the top end that's
habitat—based. But
bottom line, no limit on
how many deer can be removed
prior to importation of
new Triple T deer from another
site.

WE had five people speak
in favor of this and seven
against.

The proposal to remove
antlers from all Triple
T bucks prior to shipment.
Currently antlers must be
removed from all these bucks,
except if it's between February
10 and March 31.

Typically that's when seasons
are closed. But if these
previous proposals are adopted
on MLDP properties, the
season will be open until
the end of February.

It's been the tradition
of this Commission not to
allow for the shipment of
antlered bucks during these
open seasons. So this proposal
basically is made to adjust
for the extension of that
season.

To simplify it, the proposal
is to remove the antlers
from all Triple T bucks
prior to shipment.

In addition there's a safety
factor for the trappers
and also the deer. Many
operations saw the antlers
off when they catch the
deer under the net for their
own safety, and then for
the deer's safety when putting
them into a trailer.

MR. BASS: There was some
discussion that if it was
the same landowner — for
instance, if we had a property
divided by a high fence,
and it wanted to move some
of the deer from one side
to another, why make him
take the antlers off.

The antler prohibition
I think has typically been
historically a concern that
somebody catches a great
big deer and ships it off
somewhere and some soul
can get into a canned hunt
or something that's not
fair chase.

If it's just a landowner
moving it from one side
of the fence to the other
side, and he owns and controls
both sides, why get into
the antler removal there.

We had that discussion,
and I guess it was late
in the day, and it didn't
kind of get resolved into
being an addendum to this.
But that was an exception
that seemed to pass muster
in the committee room, even
though it's not up here.

MR. WOLF: Thanks.

Eleven for this proposal
and zero against.

We also have a proposal
from the Committee to suspend
permit issuance for one
year for certain violations.

Currently if a MLDP cooperator
exceeds the harvest recommendation
that's in their plan, and
if the biologist chooses
not to issue permits, they
cannot receive permits for
the next three years.

The White-tailed Deer Advisory
Committee thought that this
was a bit excessive and
proposes that the suspension
be reduced to one year,
if in fact the biologist
chooses not to issue permits.

We've had eleven comments
on this. They're all for.

And our final proposal
deals with inconsequential
release. You'll recall I
told you there are a couple
instances where a site inspection
is not required.

One of those was covered
by our MLDP provisions.
This is the other one.

Currently Triple T releases
is allowed at a rate not
to exceed one deer per 200
acres without a site inspection.
We've termed this inconsequential
release, although you won't
see that in the rules.

Once that stocking has
reached one deer to 200
acres, they can receive
no more stocking. So in
essence it's a once in a
lifetime, no site inspection
stocking.

The proposal is to allow
an inconsequential release
at the same maximum intensity
of one deer to 200 acres,
at a frequency of every
four years or a change in
ownership of the receiving
property.

We had eight comments for
this and six against.

There were a couple of
comments at our public hearings,
where the commenters indicated
that in their opinion, the
inconsequential provisions
were not consistent with
the department's stocking
policy, which basically
governs the movement of
all deer in Texas.

This caused us to take
a little closer look at
the stocking policy at our
stocking records and what
had taken place and also
visit with field staff.

In fact we did have some
issues that we think are
habitat—based. This
particular proposal might
warrant a little bit closer
scrutiny.

And that's my last proposal.
I'll take any questions
now.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: I've
got a question to follow
up on your comment there,
Clayton, on the last issue.

As I understand it the
Advisory Board's pretty
clear on their commitment
to the biological basis
or habitat as a foundation
for the policy. I mean,
that's stated policy.

If I understand this last
proposal, it assumes an
inconsequential release
without one of the two ways
that you can base that assumption.
You either base it on data,
or you base it on a site
visit. Right?

MR. WOLF: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: And
unlike your first or second
proposal, where you're making
the change for Level III
MLDPs, those people obviously
are under a wildlife management
plan and wouldn't be a Level
III MLDP.

In this case you could
have no wildlife management
plan in the receiving —

MR. WOLF: No, sir. That's
not correct. The regulations
do require that a stocking
plan is necessary for all
release sites. And our rules
indicate that a wildlife
management plan can serve
in lieu of a stocking plan.

However, the inconsequential
releases do not have to
necessarily abide by the
recommendations in the wildlife
management plan. And that's
the difference between the
Level IIIs.

Under inconsequential release,
a property or co—op
can come to us and ask for
a wildlife management plan,
because the requirement
is an approved plan.

And the plan may in fact
indicate that the properties
are saturated or fully stocked.
But once they've received
their approved plan, they
are good to go for an inconsequential
release on that property.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: The
onsite visit without necessarily
the data.

MR. WOLF: That's correct.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: So
you could have a situation
where the exception follows
the rule.

MR. WOLF: Yes, sir. I think
in fact what we've learned
through time — inconsequential
releases have taken place
since the year 2000, I believe.

And probably when folks
were thinking about this — you
know, a deer to 200 acres
scattered across the landscape
is some very little intensity.

However, looking at some
of our stocking records,
something probably we didn't
foresee, is that there are
some co—op with quite
a bit of acreage that have
received shipments of 60
to 100 deer to go into some
co—ops that have very
fragmented habitats.

The animals don't stay
distributed across the landscape.
So the real stocking intensity
could be much higher, depending
on where those deer end
up. They're going to end
up where the pockets of
habitat are.

So I don't necessarily
think that folks envisioned
this when this was first
talked about. IN addition,
at our Advisory Committee
meeting, we did not brief
the White-tailed Deer Advisory
Committee on the stocking
policy which governs all
stocking in Texas.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: So
at the very least it seems
that we ought attempt to
be consistent.

MR. BASS: A little background.
I think when this first
came up, the concept was
you throw one more deer
on the King Ranch that's
800,000 acres, it doesn't
amount to a hill of beans.
That's obviously an extreme
example. The principle's
illustrated.

There are a number of instances
where people would want
to apply for a handful of
deer — eight, 12,
whatever.

Going through the same
rigmarole as if somebody
was going to do 100 deer
was a strain on staff. If
it's inconsequential to
put one deer on the 800,000—acre
King Ranch, what point does
inconsequential become of
consequence.

Through a process, one
deer to 200 acres is where
the point on the continuum
was drawn, rightly or wrongly.

I think what Clayton's
referring to is — what
wasn't really anticipated
at that time — was,
one deer on 800,000 acres
that's all farmland with
a one—acre piece of
habitat in the middle of
it is of consequence.

Because you're really putting
one deer on one acre instead
of 800,000. So that was
part of this that didn't
get put into the calculus
at the time.

Frankly I'm not sure that
in our committee meeting,
we really focused on that
potential aspect of it a
month or two ago when we
discussed this. I don't
remember talking about it
at that time.

MR. WOLF: No, we did not.

MR. BASS: Another aspect
of saying, if one deer was
put on a ranch 20 years
ago, putting one more today
can't be of any consequence.
This once—in—a—lifetime
thing didn't seem reasonable,
when the average lifespan
of a deer is six or eight
years.

So the four—year
number in the proposal came
from — the average
age of the deer you're going
to throw out there is probably
three or four years old.
You add another four years
to it, that deer will not
be around any more.

So if his spot was inconsequential
before, and he's no longer
there, why shouldn't someone
be able to put it back.

The change of property
was, does this become a
deed restriction. That kind
of sounded silly. You mean
I can't do this because
the guy I bought it from
did it. You didn't tell
me that. So those concepts
went into this proposal.

Now what Clayton has brought
up, the potential inconsistency
with some other things,
where it really can be a
loophole that is of impact
on habitat. I don't think
we discussed it in committee.

I guess it really kind
of raises the question does
the whole concept of inconsequential
release and does one per
200 the right place on the
continuum to put the dot.
That whole issue needs to
be backed up and looked
at again.

Mr. Chairman, you're correct
in that the Committee is
very sound in resolve that
the touchstone of all these
things that we try to go
back and touch on is the
biology and the habitat.

The habitat's the top of
the food chain — kind
of an inviable touchstone
to run everything by and
see if it holds water.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: And
if everything's driven by
habitat, then it doesn't
make any sense really to
undermine that.

But I don't want to overblow
this. We're not talking
about a significant amount
of deer right now in this
program. We're talking about
an average — I did
the arithmetic once — 18
or 20 animals over 60 some
odd releases.

MR. WOLF: Yes. When we
initiated this prior to
CWD testing, it seems CWD
testing's affected all of
Triple T.

Initially we were talking
about 63, 45 sites in the
first two years that got
inconsequential releases
of 1,100 dear on those 60
and 40 sites.

Recently we're talking
more along the lines — in
the last two years 17 sites
and 10 sites receiving 300
deer, approximately. Something
along those lines.

Obviously some of that
is tied to CWD testing.
I guess we assume that that's
what's causing the decrease.

But also in fact is sites
that are available. Some
of these sites, once they
got their one—time
inconsequential release,
they're no longer available
any more.

Although I think there's
quite a few acres in Texas
that have not received their
inconsequential release
yet.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: So
backing up, having to look
at this, is not going to — at
least right now is going
to have a huge impact on
sites with a number of deer.

MR. BASS: One solution
is to say one deer per 200
acres of deer habitat. How
do you know that the guy's —

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Site
inspection.

MR. BASS: I've seen deer
out in my coastal field.
And then you've got to do
a site inspection.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: You
make a good point there,
is that it's about the site
inspection. You can do multiple
releases. It's not one per
property. It's only without
a site inspection.

So I don't think we should
get too carried with the
exception, and let that
desire to avoid a site inspection
drive the policy.

MR. BASS: This is a very
small issue, even amongst
the deer queers on my committee.
Please strike that.

MR. WOLF: And the other
issue is of course the reason
we investigated this is
the Department stocking
policy was referenced.

The rules do state that
all of the translocation
of deer are governed by
the stocking policy.

So I think if we were to
go back and reinvestigate,
it would be also a thorough
of this Commission's stocking
policy and the history the
basis and what—not,
which appears to be habitat—based
also.

There probably is a little
bit of room for interpretation
on some of those terms in
the stocking policy, that
we'd have to work through
and make sure that we are
doing as this Commission
wishes.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Any
other questions, comments?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Thanks
for taking the hard job;
those can be long meetings,
I think.

Anything else, Clayton?

MR. BASS: It think it would
appropriate to at least
have some dialogue about
a concept that came up in
the Committee, and we've
talked about it in two meetings.

We've dubbed it — Triple
T is trap, transport and
translocate.

As of a year ago, there's
a TTP — trap, transport
and process, where the animals
are trapped and then basically
become butchered and go
into charity or the prison
system, I think are the
two avenues by statue out
of the last legislature.

The concept that we've
had a couple of hours of
discussion of it, we've
kind of dubbed TTH — trap,
transport, hunt.

The basic concept is this.
All the deer that are in
any of these TT and another
initial programs are deer
that the wildlife management
plan on the place where
they reside deem to be surplus
animals. So they are tagged
to move on in some form
or fashion.

The concept — I've
heard it kicked around some
campfires for several years — but
we've talked about it in
committee twice — that
there would be a managed
property, high—fenced
of habitat where deer that
are destined to move on
would be translocated to.

Then they would be hunted
under some format. Probably
day hunts. Ideally the locations
would be close to urban
centers, where they were
more accessible to individuals
who have a desire to hunt,
but maybe don't have the
opportunity to hunt.

The idea is that the fee
for doing so would be very
affordable in the context
of what hunting costs in
Texas today. Maybe $100
or less for one day. Maybe
a couple hundred dollars,
if it's a two or three—day
experience, whatever.

There are initially a lot
of knee jerk reactions of
how this thing can go wrong.
It would not be good that
it happened in any way,
what any of us would consider
a canned hunt, or lack of
fair chase type experience.

In other words, you put
ten deer in a coastal field
that's 300 acres, and anybody
that's a decent shot with
a high powered rifle can
kill them all from standing
in one spot.

You put them in a bunch
of good brush. They're still
wild deer, and it's going
to be a challenge. They
have an opportunity to hide,
to move about in a manner
to which they are accustomed.

I think the sentiment of
the Advisory Committee is
that it is something worth
pursuing or at least worth
further discussion.

Things that kind of pop
out as being avenues that
seem more favorable than
less, is that at least initially,
it's something that's done
probably not on Department
property, but on property
that the Department has
an active oversight role
in, maybe a lease situation,
private operator.

But there's a lot of governance
from the Parks and Wildlife
to give it the good housekeeping
seal of approval and to
be sure that all the little
things that nobody can think
of sitting in a room like
this, get handled in way
that are appropriate and
would pass the 60 minutes
test.

You read it on the front
page of the newspaper. You
say, some people may not
like it but there's nothing
wrong with it. It's defensible
and something that you can
feel good about.

Feeling that it perhaps
should have a strong youth
component, although probably
not be an exclusive youth
program, just because of
viability.

Feeling that if it was
attempted, that initially,
kind of the toe test in
the water, that you may
be able to find participants — 500,
1000 deer, something like
that — maybe less,
year one.

But that once everybody
was comfortable that it
wasn't going to be the end
of the world, there could
potentially be thousands
of deer made available for
a program like this from
highly managed, actively
managed ranches throughout
the state. So it could be
big.

Any of the other kind of —

MR. WOLF: You've covered
most of the points in the
discussion.

MR. BASS: The things that
have come up have not been
reasons not to do it. There've
been more reasons to do
it this way versus that
way.

I think there are individuals
on the Committee that had
a very strong knee jerk
initial reaction — not
only no, but hell no, that
are now saying, You know,
we really should try this.

This could really be good,
in terms of getting hunting
opportunity for people who
have the desire but not
the means. It's not just
financial means. A lot of
it's just time.

If you could go do it in
a one—day deal, because
it's close to an urban area,
maybe it's attractive. The
youth aspect's attractive
to most people.

It's something we've wrestled
with. I'm not sure there's
a lot farther for us in
the Committee to push the
middle of the road without
some idea from the Commission — is
this something we should
be working on.

Is this something we're
not ready for, so let's
back burner it. Is it a
good use of our time or
not. I think any kind of
feedback — not necessarily
today — but any kind
of feedback that we can
get would be helpful for
the Committee.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: In
light of the evolving discussion
that you describe — because
I've of course heard various
sides of the TTH — I
certainly am open to it.
It makes a lot of sense.

We have, as you pointed
out, a serious surplus deer
issue. And I don't care
if we hear about it from
Hollywood Park, Lakeway
or wherever —

MR. BASS: No matter what
we've done to liberalize
hunting regulations and
try to expand hunting opportunity
for deer in this state over
the last ten or 15 years
at least — our deer
population is still growing.
We are not keeping up with
it.

We're dealing basically
with a regulatory system — the
old license with the tags
on it you put in your wallet — that
was developed in an era
where there were too few
deer, too many hunters — figuring
out how to conserve the
resource and then allocate
scare resource amongst too
much demand.

The situation's flipped
now. We've got too much
supply, too little demand
in the great big picture.
And that's why there's been
a need to develop all these
permits, some of which we
saw — the alphabet
soup kind of group of permits
that we'd see all the initials
for.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Well
for the reason you've pointed
out, I think's it worth
pursuing.

Phil?

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
I think it would be great
to pursue, because to me
the biggest long—term
challenge we've got is getting
urban dwellers out recreating,
hunting and fishing in the
outdoors, and come up with
some way approximate to
the big urban centers to
do that.

It seems to me that all
the practical issues, the
big political issue would
be to make sure it really
is a fair chase, natural
setting, so that it's not
going to get the bad press.
It might be if it were something
other than that.

I've been wondering in
the back of my mind how
are we either open up a
market, create an affordable
market for hunting as the
people get priced out. I
keep hearing that all the
time. I know that everybody's
conscious of it.

You may have an angle on
it here and deal with surplus,
too, which is —

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Mark?

COMMISSIONER WATSON: Well,
I think that there's no
doubt that we have too many
deer. I think, though, that
if we do this, I think we're
really, really taking a
big chance if we release
these deer into small, high—fenced
areas — 300 acres
is pretty small.

The next step is we'll
just go ahead and take a
bunch of 160 bucks and release
them out for some guy from
New York to come out and
pop in a ten—acre
pen.

I think that if you want
to do it — I think
we're really, really going
to be criticized pretty
severely, if it wasn't a
real significant —

I don't know what the right
number is

MR. BASS: One thousand
acres is good habitat. It's
kind of a concept that's
been thrown around the table
in the Committee.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: I
think Mark's got a point.
It's not so much if you
do it. It's how you do it.

MR. BASS: That's really
what the Committee's gotten
down to. The concept's not
a bad one, but there's a
lot of ways to do it poorly.

COMMISSIONER RAMOS: I certainly
am in favor of this. My
only concern is similar
to what Mark is talking
about, and that is that
we cannot create a slaughterhouse
type of environment.

In other words, the whole
idea of hunting is that
you have a true hunting
experience. To the extent
that we could do that — that's
a loaded statement right
there because of the manpower
involved in it, one, and
ensuring that we don't compromise
the idea of the habitat.

In other words, if we're
releasing or moving deer
to be hunted, that that
environment where the deer
are going to have sufficient
habitat to where if the
hunts were unsuccessful,
that you would not be creating
a problem.

Just because you move 50
deer to 1,000 acres doesn't
mean you're going to shoot
50. You may only shoot five.
And as long as that's factored
into the formula —

MR. BASS: The safety net
was there's also the TTP.
So at the end of the hunting
period, if 50 deer came
in and 40 went out — whoever's
running this thing is responsible
for getting the other ten
out the door.

COMMISSIONER RAMOS: You
know the other thing, especially
for the youth. I keep advocating
the youth, and we all are
sensitive to that.

But I think we need to
think outside the box. And
I certainly would support
something along those lines.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: You've
got a lot of work to do
to work out those details.
Your Committee has —

COMMISSIONER WATSON: I
think that one of the things
we've got to do is that
make sure we're trying to
create deer hunters and
not deer shooters. We've
got plenty of deer shooters.
And I think what we're trying
to do is have more hunters
and have the experience.

COMMISSIONER HENRY: Conceptually,
I'd like to support the
concept. I'm not going to
try to tell you how to do
it for the same reason that
I don't play poker with
Lee.

I think from hearing what
I've heard from people around
the Houston area and in
other places as well who
complain about not having
the ability or the facility
to hunt, and given the concerns
that we've expressed around
this table in the past few
years, concerning the apportioning
of hunters between this
group as opposed to another
group, be it along economic
lines, class lines, urban
or rural, the time lines
and others.

Given the changing and
demographics in the state,
the changes in population
and all and following our
land and water conservation
plan, particularly the I—35,
I-45, I-10 corridors, and
the concerns that we have
about this 70 percent of
the population, I'd like
to see us look at it and
look at it in terms of what
can we do, given the concerns
that you've expressed, and
the knowledge that's not
only around this table,
but in your Committee and
other places, what can we
do to put a plan like this
in place.

Maybe it's not something
we do in a year or two.
Maybe a year or two of a
toe in the water approach,
trying it out somewhere
to see what it's like, using
your experiences and your
knowledge to make sure that
it is well thought out and
well planned and well executed.

I think it can help us
solve some big problems
that we're going to face
in the future from urbanites
from the ethnic populations
that are increasing in this
state with regard to hunting
availability, as well as
our concern for youth that
all of us are interested
in.

MR. BASS: You know, one
of the things that somebody
came up with in committee
is, it's not just a problem
of urban people not having
an opportunity that live
in Dallas, Houston, San
Antonio.

It's the Falfuriases, the
Corsicanas — it's
the towns under 10,000 people,
whose grandparents don't
have the farm anymore. It's
kind of any incorporated
area almost. But you're
right, there is that triangle
that's a huge, huge number.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Well,
you make a good point, Al.

As everybody's is probably
tired of me pointing out
by now, we're trying to
tie everything back into
the plan we already said
we were going to do.

If I don't do anything
else in my time as chairman,
I can say, well, this is
part of what we said we
were going to do. And I
think TTH fits that in concept.
But as you've heard, you're
going to have some tough
taskmasters here to vet
it through. Absolutely keep
working on it is what I
think.

It's worth your time to
work on it, is what you're
hearing.

MR. BASS: The question,
I think has been answered,
is there enough interest
at the Commission level,
that it's a good use of
the Committee's time to
try to push it down the
road and bring you something
that's got more flesh on
the bones than the real
simple skeleton that I offered
you today. It says the right
size is in excess of X acres
and this kind of habitat.

It's a problem with those
things — it's kind
of like pornography; it's
hard to describe it, but
when you go and look at
it, you know what it is.
You know this works, and
this just doesn't look right.
Philosophically, as somebody
pointed out to me, we really
already do this with birds,
with fish — almost
everything but deer.

Part of the difference
is a lot of those animals
are reared in captivity
and then liberated to be
hunted or fished and these
are critters that are wild
just being put in a situation
when they're more vulnerable.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: I
don't know. Going from Lakeway
to a 1000-acre ranch might
by a step up.

MR. BASS: In seriousness,
there's some discussion
that those deer, the Lakeway
deer, maybe should be ineligible
because you don't want deer
that when they hear a car
door or hear a human voice
think — food and walk
up and try to — it
takes two to be fair chase.
Right? Somebody's got to
run for there to be a chase.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Well,
you're making some good
points that — you're
going to have a lot of work
there to answer all those
detailed questions.

MR. BASS: I'll take that
as a — we should push
it on down the road and
see if we have something
we're comfortable enough
with bring back for another
round. And by the way, any
of you are welcome to come
to my committee meeting
if you're not having enough
fun. I'm done.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Well,
let me get the housekeeping
straight here.

MR. BASS: Right.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: The
TTH issue, you're ready
to go back and work on that,
so that's not —

MR. BASS: You want to kick
that back downstairs somewhere.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: And
kicking back also the inconsequential
release. And then for tomorrow — we'll
probably put on the agenda
tomorrow — I didn't
count them all. Was it seven — all
but the last one?

MR. WOLF: It's my understanding
that I would have to present
all since they were published,
but basically would indicate
that this committee has
recommended that one, that
is the inconsequential,
go back to the White-tailed
Deer Advisory Committee,
and not be adopted.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Okay.
With that clarification
then, if there are no further
questions or discussion — anybody
else? We can talk about
deer forever.

COMMISSIONER RAMOS: I just
want to thank this committee
for doing such a great job.
This is a very challenging
arena.

CHAIRMAN FITZSIMONS: Best
man for the job; you proved
it. Good job.

I'll place this item on
the Thursday Commission
Meeting agenda for public
comment and action.

Any other business to come
before the Regulations Committee?

(No response.)

The Regulations Committee
is adjourned at two o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 2:00 p.m.,
the meeting was adjourned.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

MEETING OF: Texas Parks
and Wildlife Commission

Regulations Committee

LOCATION: Austin, Texas

DATE: April 7, 2004

I do hereby certify that
the foregoing pages, numbers
1 through 132 inclusive,
are the true, accurate,
and complete transcript
prepared from the verbal
recording made by electronic
recording by Penny Bynum
before the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Commission.